• 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!

Chick-fil-A

Should business owners hold opinions/donate towards them without fear of punishment?

  • Total voters
    43
Your Star said:
One day of business does not a good quarter make.
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't hurt. Do you really suppose that after this, Chick-fil-A will be doing less business than it was before?



The pro-homosexuality side has managed to deceive itself into thinking that it is the majority, opposed only by a small, narrow-minded, bigoted fringe of a minority. They'd created this illusion through lies and intimidation, to make far too many of those who held the opposing view ashamed or afraid to say so. Up until recently, this truly stands among most successful applications of the principles of political correctness.

The truth is, the majority of Americans still know that homosexuality is immoral, that “gay marriage” is wrong, and are opposed to both. This has been proven true every time the matter has come up on a ballot. Your side may have made people fearful of publicly speaking up for what they know is right, but the intimidation and bullying which accomplished this doesn't work in the voting booth.

I think the Chick-fil-A controversy marks an important turning point. This is the point where your side pushed your ersatz “advantage” too far. You stretched the illusion, and it broke, revealing the truth that it is your side that is and will always be the fringe minority. A specific business was attacked because its owner is not afraid to stand up for wholesome moral values, and Americans turned out in drives to support that business, and by proxy, those values. I can hope that nearly all of those who showed up to support Chick-fil-A and Mr. Cathy will no longer allow themselves to otherwise be bullied out of openly saying what they believe about this issue.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It certainly doesn't hurt. Do you really suppose that after this, Chick-fil-A will be doing less business than it was before?



The pro-homosexuality side has managed to deceive itself into thinking that it is the majority, opposed only by a small, narrow-minded, bigoted fringe of a minority. They'd created this illusion through lies and intimidation, to make far too many of those who held the opposing view ashamed or afraid to say so. Up until recently, this truly stands among most successful applications of the principles of political correctness.

The truth is, the majority of Americans still know that homosexuality is immoral, that “gay marriage” is wrong, and are opposed to both. This has been proven true every time the matter has come up on a ballot. Your side may have made people fearful of publicly speaking up for what they know is right, but the intimidation and bullying which accomplished this doesn't work in the voting booth.

I think the Chick-fil-A controversy marks an important turning point. This is the point where your side pushed your ersatz “advantage” too far. You stretched the illusion, and it broke, revealing the truth that it is your side that is and will always be the fringe minority. A specific business was attacked because its owner is not afraid to stand up for wholesome moral values, and Americans turned out in drives to support that business, and by proxy, those values. I can hope that nearly all of those who showed up to support Chick-fil-A and Mr. Cathy will no longer allow themselves to otherwise be bullied out of openly saying what they believe about this issue.
Click to expand...

Bob, I gotta say, the most opposition to marriage equality comes from the generation that will be dead in a decade or two.

Marriage equality is basically an inevitability.

Time to accept that.
 
RadicalModerate said:
That one in the red looks absolutely drunk on fried chicken.
Click to expand...

Its the sauce. The whole thing is ridiculous of both sides.

But let them eat that hormone shot chicken. What the industry has done to chickens is sickening but am certain none of those in line are interested in that.
 
Wake said:
1) If that were true then why would the ACLU have ever gotten involved to assure us that Chick-fil-A has the right to an opinion free from bullying from politicians like Rahm? [...]
Click to expand...
Cite the bullying.

Or do you mean where Rahm voiced his opinion? (I know what Rahm said, so best to save your time)

The Chicken CEO has the right to voice his beliefs without official retribution, but part of the problem is that there was some fear that his beliefs were or would be transferred to the operation of his company, resulting in discrimination -- especially since it is a family owned business. And I don't think that is an unfounded fear. Problem is, difficult to prove, so best to just let his words pass without comment and keep an eye (public, I'm speaking of here) on his operation.

Of course, the activists couldn't let it pass without mouthing off about it, and therefore the bad guy (in their eyes) winds up being portrayed as the victim by people they don't like (the right). Lose-lose for the activists, but that is not unusual when you let emotion overtake reason.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It certainly doesn't hurt. Do you really suppose that after this, Chick-fil-A will be doing less business than it was before?



The pro-homosexuality side has managed to deceive itself into thinking that it is the majority, opposed only by a small, narrow-minded, bigoted fringe of a minority. They'd created this illusion through lies and intimidation, to make far too many of those who held the opposing view ashamed or afraid to say so. Up until recently, this truly stands among most successful applications of the principles of political correctness.

The truth is, the majority of Americans still know that homosexuality is immoral, that “gay marriage” is wrong, and are opposed to both. This has been proven true every time the matter has come up on a ballot. Your side may have made people fearful of publicly speaking up for what they know is right, but the intimidation and bullying which accomplished this doesn't work in the voting booth.

I think the Chick-fil-A controversy marks an important turning point. This is the point where your side pushed your ersatz “advantage” too far. You stretched the illusion, and it broke, revealing the truth that it is your side that is and will always be the fringe minority. A specific business was attacked because its owner is not afraid to stand up for wholesome moral values, and Americans turned out in drives to support that business, and by proxy, those values. I can hope that nearly all of those who showed up to support Chick-fil-A and Mr. Cathy will no longer allow themselves to otherwise be bullied out of openly saying what they believe about this issue.
Click to expand...

Those who don't support homosexual marriage are not the only people who can find themselves supporting Chick-Fil-A either.

I believe homosexuals should have a right to be legally married (not religiously if said religion does not agree). However, when government leaders get involved by threatening to limit and Gerry-mander the business with red-tape bureaucracy to prevent it from being able to do business due to the political beliefs of that business's leaders...... that is where I draw the line.

I support both the right for homosexuals to be legally married, as well as Chick-Fil-A's right to have an opinion on a political matter and not be punished or threatened to be punished by a government entity for having such opinion.
 
Caine said:
Those who don't support homosexual marriage are not the only people who can find themselves supporting Chick-Fil-A either.

I believe homosexuals should have a right to be legally married (not religiously if said religion does not agree). However, when government leaders get involved by threatening to limit and Gerry-mander the business with red-tape bureaucracy to prevent it from being able to do business due to the political beliefs of that business's leaders...... that is where I draw the line.

I support both the right for homosexuals to be legally married, as well as Chick-Fil-A's right to have an opinion on a political matter and not be punished or threatened to be punished by a government entity for having such opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, but I believe Bob does touch on a truth that support for SSM and gay rights (overall) is not as widely popular as some would have us believe.
 
Karl said:
Cite the bullying.

Or do you mean where Rahm voiced his opinion? (I know what Rahm said, so best to save your time)

The Chicken CEO has the right to voice his beliefs without official retribution, but part of the problem is that there was some fear that his beliefs were or would be transferred to the operation of his company, resulting in discrimination -- especially since it is a family owned business. And I don't think that is an unfounded fear. Problem is, difficult to prove, so best to just let his words pass without comment and keep an eye (public, I'm speaking of here) on his operation.

Of course, the activists couldn't let it pass without mouthing off about it, and therefore the bad guy (in their eyes) winds up being portrayed as the victim by people they don't like (the right). Lose-lose for the activists, but that is not unusual when you let emotion overtake reason.
Click to expand...

With respect I believe it is bullying when a politician, from his/her position of power and influence, "opines" that a business not set up shop in town.

It's uncertain if there is discrimination within Chick-fil-A. I agree he has the right to an opinion with official retribution (I think that means government bullying).

The activists would have had far more success if they responded positively. If someone calls me a hateful bigot/crazy Christian, when in truth I'm just trying to follow the Word of God, I'm not going to really consider their views when they talk to/about us like that. There is wisdom in the saying that honey attracts more flies than vinegar.
 
Phys251 said:
Overall, they look older, wider, and whiter than the average American.
Click to expand...

RadicalModerate said:
That one in the red looks absolutely drunk on fried chicken.
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
This Is What Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day Looked Like (With Your Pictures, Stories, and Video) | Video | TheBlaze.com

I love scrolling through these photos. Not a person of color in sight and more fat asses than I ever care to see. Guess this is the Republican voter of 2012?
Click to expand...

So this is what the pro-homosexual side is now reduced to—puerile insults directed at random strangers. Less than a month ago, and for a long time up to that point, you thought you were winning this debate. Now it's clear that you know you are losing, badly.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
So this is what the pro-homosexual side is now reduced to—puerile insults directed at random strangers. Less than a month ago, and for a long time up to that point, you thought you were winning this debate. Now it's clear that you know you are losing, badly.
Click to expand...

It's not a failing cause, some just see an easy target and run with it. Chick Fil A was a stupid non-issue to begin with.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
So this is what the pro-homosexual side is now reduced to—puerile insults directed at random strangers. Less than a month ago, and for a long time up to that point, you thought you were winning this debate. Now it's clear that you know you are losing, badly.
Click to expand...

It is what it is.....I just find it rather telling that in all of those photos...there isn't a single person of color and a lot of people who look like they spend an awful lot of time eating fast food and sitting around listening to right-wing radio.
 
disneydude said:
I love scrolling through these photos. Not a person of color in sight and more fat asses than I ever care to see. Guess this is the Republican voter of 2012?
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
It is what it is.....I just find it rather telling that in all of those photos...there isn't a single person of color and a lot of people who look like they spend an awful lot of time eating fast food and sitting around listening to right-wing radio.
Click to expand...

That's partisan vitriol.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Do you dispute that it is true? A photo speaks a thousand words.
Click to expand...

No, what you're doing is intellectually dishonest. You're looking at the people in those photos and insinuating that they're white/fat/talk radio listeners. No, you're spewing partisan vitriol, and it is exactly that kind of disgusting hackery that gives both the political right and left a bad rap.
 
Wake said:
No, what you're doing is intellectually dishonest. You're looking at the people in those photos and insinuating that they're white/fat/talk radio listeners. No, you're spewing partisan vitriol, and it is exactly that kind of disgusting hackery that gives both the political right and left a bad rap.
Click to expand...

No. In fact....there isn't a single person of color in any of the photos.

And the second part was my OWN personal observation...I never claimed it as a fact.
 
Surtr said:
That's like saying the womens rights crowd is a bunch of butch lesbians because of pictures that were deliberately taken and selected to depict them in that way.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that these pictures were taken to skew the demographics of the crowd? Funny.....the site where they come from is a right-wing site. So that kinda dispels that theory.
 
disneydude said:
Are you suggesting that these pictures were taken to skew the demographics of the crowd? Funny.....the site where they come from is a right-wing site. So that kinda dispels that theory.
Click to expand...

It's not a theory, since the scientific process hasn't been applied. Only thing going on here is you childishly accusing Chick Fil A customers of being fat racists.
 
Surtr said:
It's not a theory, since the scientific process hasn't been applied. Only thing going on here is you childishly accusing Chick Fil A customers of being fat racists.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever imply that they were "racist". What I said is that it is very telling that in the photos there isn't a single person of color at this CFA "Appreciation day". It was more of a commentary on the GOP becoming the extremist party of white America, then it was about racisim. That was simply your knee-jerk reactionism in play. And considering that the "CFA Appreciation day" was largely created by and promoted by right-wing media....I don't think that I am far off.
 
disneydude said:
Where did I ever imply that they were "racist". What I said is that it is very telling that in the photos there isn't a single person of color at this CFA "Appreciation day". It was more of a commentary on the GOP becoming the extremist party of white America, then it was about racisim. That was simply your knee-jerk reactionism in play. And considering that the "CFA Appreciation day" was largely created by and promoted by right-wing media....I don't think that I am far off.
Click to expand...

I dislike word games.

You comment on where you supposedly implied they were racist, yet you say it's "very telling" that there weren't any "persons of color" at the CFAs. Then you haphazardly comment about how the GOP is "becoming an extremist party of white America." You're backtracking, insinuating those people are fat racists, yet not taking responsibility for your comments. I think you should practice some self-respect and admit what you really mean to say about them. I get it. You despise them because they're hateful, evil, Christian, white, straight Americans. Yeah, **** 'em, correct?

Say what you mean, so you don't get caught up in your subtle insinuations again.
 
Wake said:
I dislike word games.

You comment on where you supposedly implied they were racist, yet you say it's "very telling" that there weren't any "persons of color" at the CFAs. Then you haphazardly comment about how the GOP is "becoming an extremist party of white America." You're backtracking, insinuating those people are fat racists, yet not taking responsibility for your comments. I think you should practice some self-respect and admit what you really mean to say about them. I get it. You despise them because they're hateful, evil, Christian, white, straight Americans. Yeah, **** 'em, correct?

Say what you mean, so you don't get caught up in your subtle insinuations again.
Click to expand...

Wow....feeling a little defensive. There is Nothing....Zero.....Zilch that I have said about them being racist. In fact...if you want to hear it directly I will spell it out. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THE PHOTOS THAT I FIND THAT WOULD INSINUATE THAT ANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE RACIST....NOR AM I IMPLYING THAT THEY ARE RACIST. There....does that make it clear?

What I AM saying is that the GOP has shifted so far to the extreme right that they have pretty much alienated any people of color from their party. That isn't saying that they are RACIST. What it is saying is that their policies and beliefs/platform is so far extremist right-wing that it only appeals to the type of people depicted in the photos. It isn't about Racism....its about EXTREMISM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom