Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes
Once again, freedom of speech only matters if you agree with liberal indoctrination.
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.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.
No, I would not buy their fries if they did that.Would it help if they changed the name to
Chix-with-dix-fil-a
??????
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?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.
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.
No, I would not buy their fries if they did that.
Would they serve them in a box?Would it help if they changed the name to
Chix-with-dix-fil-a
??????
Yeah, but I'd draw the line at puppies.I'd still buy their fries if they changed the name to "gay liberal anti-semite-fil-a" and supported drowning kittens
No, I would not buy their fries if they did that.
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?
I'm not a fan of dehumanizing anyone besides child molesters and rapists. That is my point.
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.You mentioned Farrakahn being an anti-Semite earlier in the thread. Are you Jewish?
Would it matter (if he were)?You mentioned Farrakahn being an anti-Semite earlier in the thread. Are you Jewish?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.I'm sorry a link you used said it. My mistake. I just found it ironic because Rahm is Jewish.
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.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'.
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.
Corporations that openly support Same Sex Marriage....
Amazon
Apple
Electronic Arts
Ford
General Mills
General Motors
Goldman Sachs
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.
Gold's Gym(holy irony there)
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
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.
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.
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.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