• 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]

Would it help if they changed the name to

Chix-with-dix-fil-a

??????
 
hazlnut said:
Sorry, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from others expressing their opinion about your speech.

Maybe you missed that day in civics.

And gay rights is no longer just a liberal position -- ask Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech does protect you from being singled out and penalized for it by those in positions of government authority. Pretty sure that qualification was in civics class, too.
 
hazlnut said:
Sorry, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from others expressing their opinion about your speech.

Maybe you missed that day in civics.

And gay rights is no longer just a liberal position -- ask Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
The mayor, like every citizen that has announced their intent to boycott, certainly has a RIGHT..an ABSOLUTE right to speak out against the owner and his position. However as a government official threatening a business based on a religious belief? Well..1-Im thinking he kinda may have stepped in it and put Chicago civilly liable and 2-how exactly does his 'out' position against ChickFilA square with his open embracing of Farrakhan, a man who has said FAR more dire things about homosexuals, homosexuality, and their actions in opposition to Gods judgment?
 
hazlnut said:
Sorry, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from others expressing their opinion about your speech.

Maybe you missed that day in civics.

And gay rights is no longer just a liberal position -- ask Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

though it does protect one from being denied a business license based on religous/political ideals, like the implied threat in the OP
 
Lokiate said:
No, I would not buy their fries if they did that.
Click to expand...

I'd still buy their fries if they changed the name to "gay liberal anti-semite-fil-a" and supported drowning kittens
 
OscarB63 said:
Would it help if they changed the name to

Chix-with-dix-fil-a

??????
Click to expand...
Would they serve them in a box? :cool:


OscarB63 said:
I'd still buy their fries if they changed the name to "gay liberal anti-semite-fil-a" and supported drowning kittens
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I'd draw the line at puppies.
 
VanceMack said:
The mayor, like every citizen that has announced their intent to boycott, certainly has a RIGHT..an ABSOLUTE right to speak out against the owner and his position. However as a government official threatening a business based on a religious belief? Well..1-Im thinking he kinda may have stepped in it and put Chicago civilly liable and 2-how exactly does his 'out' position against ChickFilA square with his open embracing of Farrakhan, a man who has said FAR more dire things about homosexuals, homosexuality, and their actions in opposition to Gods judgment?
Click to expand...

You mentioned Farrakahn being an anti-Semite earlier in the thread. Are you Jewish?
 
Thorgasm said:
I'm not a fan of dehumanizing anyone besides child molesters and rapists. That is my point.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of free speech? A person shouldn't face reprisal from the government for the things they say. even if what they say is ignorant and hurtful. Otherwise we have no free speech.
 
Thorgasm said:
You mentioned Farrakahn being an anti-Semite earlier in the thread. Are you Jewish?
Click to expand...
Did I? Others may have mentioned his anti-semitic comments. I believe my focus has been on Farrakhans direct comments on homosexuals (swine, I believe is what the article cited), homosexuality (a sin, against God...but hey...he is only saying it because he loves the Gays and wants to help them), and on Gay marriage. I'm certain if you have some sort of set-up point you would be better served just to come out and say it, but if you would like to research my comments on this thread and find somewhere that I commented on Farrakhan's anti-Semitic nature, be my guest.
 
Thorgasm said:
You mentioned Farrakahn being an anti-Semite earlier in the thread. Are you Jewish?
Click to expand...
Would it matter (if he were)?

Many men support gender equality. Many whites support racial equality. And so on. Is status or inclusion in an affected group necessary? If no, then I completely fail to see any point to the question, unless it's just baiting.
 
Miguel17 said:
What does any of this have to do with freedom of speech? As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not included opening restaurants as expressions of constitutionally protected speech. Although, you never know after Citizens United. City officials are well within their rights to block a private company from opening locations within their cities. The fact that its concerned with the Chick-fil-A's guy's imbecilic comments about marriage is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Of course.

And, using the impeccable Obamarrhoidal logic: "City officials are well within their rights to block a 'private person from getting a job' within their cities. The fact that its concerned with the 'private person being a follower of ' the Chick-fil-A's guy's imbecilic comments about marriage is immaterial".

Another example of an absolute proof that the concept of "freedom of speech" is OK ........only if that speech agrees with the LIEberrhoidal point of view".
 
Last edited:
Phoenix said:
Not a fan of free speech? A person shouldn't face reprisal from the government for the things they say. even if what they say is ignorant and hurtful. Otherwise we have no free speech.
Click to expand...

After thinking about it, you are correct. The government shouldn't stop them for what he said.
 
VanceMack said:
Did I? Others may have mentioned his anti-semitic comments. I believe my focus has been on Farrakhans direct comments on homosexuals (swine, I believe is what the article cited), homosexuality (a sin, against God...but hey...he is only saying it because he loves the Gays and wants to help them), and on Gay marriage. I'm certain if you have some sort of set-up point you would be better served just to come out and say it, but if you would like to research my comments on this thread and find somewhere that I commented on Farrakhan's anti-Semitic nature, be my guest.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry a link you used said it. My mistake. I just found it ironic because Rahm is Jewish.
 
radcen said:
Would it matter (if he were)?

Many men support gender equality. Many whites support racial equality. And so on. Is status or inclusion in an affected group necessary? If no, then I completely fail to see any point to the question, unless it's just baiting.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't matter if he were. I was curious.
 
Thorgasm said:
I'm sorry a link you used said it. My mistake. I just found it ironic because Rahm is Jewish.
Click to expand...
I didnt think I had...and really...I believe you yourself said it best yesterday...the whole thing is nothing more than blatantly obvious political grandstanding. Its why it is so hard to take any of this serious...certainly not some sort of supposed stand on the idea of 'values'.
 
VanceMack said:
I didnt think I had...and really...I believe you yourself said it best yesterday...the whole thing is nothing more than blatantly obvious political grandstanding. Its why it is so hard to take any of this serious...certainly not some sort of supposed stand on the idea of 'values'.
Click to expand...
I have come to agree that it is indeed grandstanding, but I still disapprove of it. I believe that, even if he knows he would never be able to actually do so, it still sets a tone and has a real potential for a dampening effect that could easily discourage CfA (or others) from even trying.

If it is grandstanding, then he's still a bully politician in the worst sense of the term.
 
radcen said:
I have come to agree that it is indeed grandstanding, but I still disapprove of it. I believe that, even if he knows he would never be able to actually do so, it still sets a tone and has a real potential for a dampening effect that could easily discourage CfA (or others) from even trying.

If it is grandstanding, then he's still a bully politician in the worst sense of the term.
Click to expand...

Rahm is known for being one of the biggest bullies ever. You don't get to be mayor of Chicago any other way.
 
CriticalThought said:
Corporations that openly support Same Sex Marriage....

Amazon
Apple
Electronic Arts
Ford
General Mills
General Motors
Goldman Sachs
Google
Home Depot
IBM
JC Penny
Kraft Foods
McDonalds
Microsoft
Nike
Pepsi
Proctor and Gamble
Sears
Starbucks
Target
United Airlines
Walgreens
The Walt Disney Company
Wells Fargo

Corporations that openly oppose Same Sex Marriage...

Chick-fil-A


That should say enough right there.
Click to expand...

Holy dishonest. Let's make a more complete list of companies that support anti-gay rights issues.

Chic-Fil-A
AUto-Zone
Cracker Barrel(until 2002, you could not even work there if you where gay)
Cinemark
Dish Network
Domino's Pizza
Gold's Gym(holy irony there)
Insure.com
Salvation Army

Guy Dads: Anti-gay companies
 
Redress said:
Holy dishonest. Let's make a more complete list of companies that support anti-gay rights issues.

Chic-Fil-A
AUto-Zone
Cracker Barrel(until 2002, you could not even work there if you where gay)
Cinemark
Dish Network
Domino's Pizza
Gold's Gym(holy irony there)
Insure.com
Salvation Army

Guy Dads: Anti-gay companies
Click to expand...

This one is pretty astounding:

ExxonMobil: Eliminated domestic-partner benefits for same-sex partners when the two companies merged in 1999. It is the largest Fortune 500 company that does not offer domestic-partner benefits. It also refuses to ban discrimination based on orientation and gender identity.
Click to expand...

The more profitable company in the history of civilization is so cheap that it denies domestic-partner benefits to same sex partners.
 
Phoenix said:
Not a fan of free speech? A person shouldn't face reprisal from the government for the things they say. even if what they say is ignorant and hurtful. Otherwise we have no free speech.
Click to expand...

Define "reprisal."

Anyone is allowed to offer up an opinion and a community can set standards for the type of businesses they want in their town.

Chick-Flic-a brand is now associated with WBC ignorance, that an invisible man in the sky is going to smite American for being tolerant. That Chick-flic-a brand, the sign, the logo may inspire feelings of oppression, disgust, nausea... just like the sign for a strip club or adult book store, or a Nazi flag. A community has the right to say, we don't want your business here.

Now, withholding permits is a different issue. I agree, a mayor has to tread lightly. A government entity should not take direct action unless they can show a conflict or interest in the community, as with strip clubs and adult book stores.

But a community has the right to speak up at a board meeting, permit hearing, whatever and voice concerns. The City of Chicago has the right to say, 'We don't like you and we wish you were not in our town.' And the mayor can speak for the people. He was elected to do so.
 
Redress said:
Holy dishonest. Let's make a more complete list of companies that support anti-gay rights issues.

Chic-Fil-A
AUto-Zone
Cracker Barrel(until 2002, you could not even work there if you where gay)
Cinemark
Dish Network
Domino's Pizza
Gold's Gym(holy irony there)
Insure.com
Salvation Army

Guy Dads: Anti-gay companies
Click to expand...
I wanted to challenge the notion that CfA was somehow standing alone, but never got to it. I knew there had to be more companies with similar mindsets from ownership than only CfA. The only one for sure I could think of was Curves.

I know that the family that owns In-n-Out Burger is also deeply religious, but I don't know if they support specific causes to the extreme that CfA does. They don't close on Sunday like CfA does, so they may not (be as extreme).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom