• 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]

1) it's still completely legal to disagree with miscegenation

2) spouting stupid, religious fueled, bigotry is still protected by the first, just like outdated views on miscegenation. In fact, it's often argued that these offensive, and unpopular, ideas are the very ones that such legislation is meant to protect. And going by your current standard, views like those those supporting civil rights, gay marriage, and atheism would have been repressed long ago, being that they challenged the very foundations of how society viewed itself, and were originally deeply offensive to the majority

Homsexuality + race = Genetic factors (those things that you really can't change). How society views itself is not alaways correct and who cares if it is offensive to the majority? Homosexuals cannot really help that which is genetic so to be biased against something like that is asinine.
 
IMO, Cathy went from being a Christian just stating their opinion to a Falwell/Robertson radical intimating that natural disasters will strike us if gays get married. This is the same crap that was brought up about interracial marriage decades ago. For many people, it's disgusting.
And if individuals want to boycott him over that, that's fine. If Da Mayor wants to get up and say, "These values are not Chicago's values.", more power to him.

Where he falls off the boat is in even suggesting that a disagreement of opinion would, in any way, affect a building permit or business license, or even the normal hoops any similar business would have to jump through to get approved. That's repugnant. That's abuse of power. I'm going to use a phrase that I seldom use because I prefer to reserve it for effect, but here I think it applies because it turns our core values of freedom of independent thought on its head... that's un-American.

Any repercussions should come solely from individuals... and Da Mayor is included in this definition of individuals... choosing to patronize other businesses and/or speaking their own opinions. Not from official government actions (or implied threat of actions).


I get my moral values from the Hamburglar. Is that bad?
I miss that guy.
 
FTR: I do think Mr Cathy was an idiot for saying what he did... or at least expanding on it to the degree that he did... as his opinion does not necessarily help business, but if he is willing to take the heat, then he at least gets kudos for having the backbone to stand up for his beliefs. Not many people in his position would do so.

Kind of makes you wonder how many CEOs feel the same way, and we patronize them because we don't know.
 
Homsexuality + race = Genetic factors (those things that you really can't change). How society views itself is not alaways correct and who cares if it is offensive to the majority? Homosexuals cannot really help that which is genetic so to be biased against something like that is asinine.

I'm not defending those beliefs, but people's right to adopt them, and pointing out the dangers of suppressing (which is the threat here) unpopular political views. Because at one time, gay rights, civil rights for racial minorities and women, and open acceptance of things like atheism were all widely unpopular ideas
 
FTR: I do think Mr Cathy was an idiot for saying what he did... or at least expanding on it to the degree that he did... as his opinion does not necessarily help business, but if he is willing to take the heat, then he at least gets kudos for having the backbone to stand up for his beliefs. Not many people in his position would do so.

Kind of makes you wonder how many CEOs feel the same way, and we patronize them because we don't know.

What did he say beyond this? (This site tells us that this is what all the hoopla's about...is it wrong?)

The latest uproar began this month when Dan T. Cathy, whose deeply religious father, S. Truett Cathy, started the company in 1967, told a Christian news organization that Chick-fil-A supported “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

“As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ “

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/gay-rights-uproar-over-chick-fil-a-widens.html

Here's the smartest thing he said:

Last week, Mr. Cathy said in a statement that his company would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”
 
If the gay fast food chicken joint is bigoted and spewing nonsensical fear mongering, then I am okay with it.
Exactly the point I am making. As long as the discrimination isn't against your chosen cause you don't care. Equality is not your interest, merely pushing your chosen agenda is.


Let's see how business does after this controversy.

Probably better. Based upon gay marriage votes in individual states, more anti gay people are out there than gay supporters. Look at all the publicity Chick-fil-A has gotten over this.
 
Exactly the point I am making. As long as the discrimination isn't against your chosen cause you don't care. Equality is not your interest, merely pushing your chosen agenda is.

I'm not a fan of dehumanizing anyone besides child molesters and rapists. That is my point.



Probably better. Based upon gay marriage votes in individual states, more anti gay people are out there than gay supporters. Look at all the publicity Chick-fil-A has gotten over this.

Using voters (only 25% of the population) is too small of a sample to arrive at this conclusion.
 
I imagine it depends on which location you are at. Each restaurant is different. We have a Taco Bell here that is busy as hell, but their quality is crap. Here, Hardee's has the best quality. It may be the opposite in other towns. The Chick Fil-A's I have eaten at were not impressive. I'm sure some locations may be better.

I get you. I can only really go off my experience. In the five area I've lived or frequent in Virginia routinely the best service, nicest stores, and best tasting food (in my opinion) has generally been Chick-Fil-A. It helps that I simply like some of their things better. I prefer their nuggets to just about every other place, I prefer their chicken sandwich to just about every other, and since I"m not a big fastfood hamburger fan I tend to go with those two more than I do burgeres. Love me some waffle fries, and their plethora of sauces are great. A lot of times though it's actually service that does it for me. I rarely feel that I'm getting unfriendly service and often am getting chipper and friendly service at a chick-fil-a. I typically can understand employees there and get understood which frankly, for a service industry, is important for me. Things like refills, additional sauce, etc...many places I seem like I'm bothering employees when I ask for it, where as often I find them actually initiating the offer to me at Chick-Fil-A. I don't doubt others have experienced different things at theirs or in their interactions...but in all five places in Virginia I've lived or frequent, all of them have been very very good.
 
hey look its a new day. Can the CEO still say he doesnt support equal gay rights? Yep, just like he could yesterday

thats why this still inst an infringement on the freedom of speech but IMO unless theres more info the company's freedom not to be unfairly discriminated against is being infringed. And even with more info or some legal loophole I would still not personally believe its right. No matter how horribly his company gives money to hate groups.
 
I imagine it depends on which location you are at. Each restaurant is different. We have a Taco Bell here that is busy as hell, but their quality is crap. Here, Hardee's has the best quality. It may be the opposite in other towns. The Chick Fil-A's I have eaten at were not impressive. I'm sure some locations may be better.
I get you. I can only really go off my experience. In the five area I've lived or frequent in Virginia routinely the best service, nicest stores, and best tasting food (in my opinion) has generally been Chick-Fil-A. It helps that I simply like some of their things better. I prefer their nuggets to just about every other place, I prefer their chicken sandwich to just about every other, and since I"m not a big fastfood hamburger fan I tend to go with those two more than I do burgeres. Love me some waffle fries, and their plethora of sauces are great. A lot of times though it's actually service that does it for me. I rarely feel that I'm getting unfriendly service and often am getting chipper and friendly service at a chick-fil-a. I typically can understand employees there and get understood which frankly, for a service industry, is important for me. Things like refills, additional sauce, etc...many places I seem like I'm bothering employees when I ask for it, where as often I find them actually initiating the offer to me at Chick-Fil-A. I don't doubt others have experienced different things at theirs or in their interactions...but in all five places in Virginia I've lived or frequent, all of them have been very very good.
Maybe this is why I don't "ooh and aah" over Chick fil-A... I'm more a burger person to begin with. I like a good chicken sandwich on occasion, but I'm really a burger guy most of the time.

As far as strips and chicken sandwiches go, though, I would have to say that the stuff Hardee's has been doing lately... the hand-breaded stuff... is by far the best of any national chain. CFA is good, but Hardee's is better, IMO.

My previous comment regarding Popeye's had to do more with full pieces of chicken (and their strips, to a lesser degree). I really like their spicy version.
 
No such thing as bad PR - the nearest Chick-fil-a is 30 minutes away and I'm craving it.
 
I'm not defending those beliefs, but people's right to adopt them, and pointing out the dangers of suppressing (which is the threat here) unpopular political views. Because at one time, gay rights, civil rights for racial minorities and women, and open acceptance of things like atheism were all widely unpopular ideas

It shows complete lack of basic comprehension, though.

Open acceptance of atheism? Yeah right. :roll:
 
Maybe this is why I don't "ooh and aah" over Chick fil-A... I'm more a burger person to begin with. I like a good chicken sandwich on occasion, but I'm really a burger guy most of the time.

As far as strips and chicken sandwiches go, though, I would have to say that the stuff Hardee's has been doing lately... the hand-breaded stuff... is by far the best of any national chain. CFA is good, but Hardee's is better, IMO.

My previous comment regarding Popeye's had to do more with full pieces of chicken (and their strips, to a lesser degree). I really like their spicy version.

I love anything with cajun seasoning.
 
Had popeyes for the first time the other day and was unimpressed. Admittedly, that could be due to the really, really, really cold fries that were thrown in my box and because I don't like spicy stuff so got their nomral chicken nuggets which were about average. But yeah, cold fries can ruin a fast food meal.
 
re: effects on sales

Just a gut feeling, but I suspect this will have little to no effect. At least in the long term. I know a few friends who love CFA's food, but have boycotted then for awhile out of disagreement on these very principles. I think the people who would be prone to boycott, pretty much already do so, because they are aware enough to know the company's owners hold these beliefs.

And that's the part that gets me about this controversy more than anything. The family has been open and honest for forever. They've never tried to hide anything. This isn't new news. Those who are conscientious enough to care already knew.
 
I'm wondering what Disney's (the actual owners of the Muppets) response will be. Bet they're calculating blowback on their property and considering suit on Lisa.
 
re: effects on sales

Just a gut feeling, but I suspect this will have little to no effect. At least in the long term. I know a few friends who love CFA's food, but have boycotted then for awhile out of disagreement on these very principles. I think the people who would be prone to boycott, pretty much already do so, because they are aware enough to know the company's owners hold these beliefs.

And that's the part that gets me about this controversy more than anything. The family has been open and honest for forever. They've never tried to hide anything. This isn't new news. Those who are conscientious enough to care already knew.

True but there are others who will eat there exclusively for the reason "they hate them there faggots!"

I think it should counterbalance.
 
I'm wondering what Disney's (the actual owners of the Muppets) response will be. Bet they're calculating blowback on their property and considering suit on Lisa.

I bet you are wrong.

4e715a1d1ccf9-gay-days-disneyland-resort-anaheim-1.jpg
 
True but there are others who will eat there exclusively for the reason "they hate them there faggots!"

I think it should counterbalance.

Nothing quite as tasty as a fag free chicken sandwich
 
actually it doesnt because he still has his freedom of speech :shrug: it hasnt been impacted or taken away LMAO

just like the day he said it, tomorrow he can still say he is against equal gay rights, nothing has changed

Would it be OK to arrest somebody for saying they are against SSM?

Would it be OK to give them 2 years in prison for saying they are against SSM?

The government action is what surpresses free speech.

That is the same effect here.

The government is trying to scare people into not saying what they feel out of fear of government action against them.
 
Would it be OK to arrest somebody for saying they are against SSM?

Would it be OK to give them 2 years in prison for saying they are against SSM?

The government action is what surpresses free speech.

That is the same effect here.

The government is trying to scare people into not saying what they feel out of fear of government action against them.

Yes, being denied a business license is just like two years in prison.
 
I'm wondering what Disney's (the actual owners of the Muppets) response will be. Bet they're calculating blowback on their property and considering suit on Lisa.
Disney/ABC has been openly supportive of gay rights for over a decade.
 
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when theorizing about politics.

"Traditional marriage" now means a marriage that lasts between 5-10 years.
 
Yes, being denied a business license is just like two years in prison.

Do you not understand the point or what?

It is the government action against the individual or a business that is the supression of the freedom of speech.
 
Back
Top Bottom