Chicago Bans, and Gets Sued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think we should remove any mention of liberty or the pursuit of happiness from any official documents.[/quote]

So, you hate America. :)[/quote]

You don’t get it. I love America just as much as you do. But in a differenct way. You see, you love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. I love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow.

Now I can not take credit for this quote by Al Franken , I did tweal it though :)[/quote]

Except I understand America better than you do, take the good with the bad. No, acknowledging it, but not taking it.[/quote]

It is your right if I understand you don’t take that grown ups see things differently than you :slight_smile: Or if you are saying you understand America better than I. either way it is your right
[/quote]

What does this have to do with the point of this discussion?

182

[quote]orion wrote:
Lewd behavior?

So what bothers you is what you think goes on behind closed doors?

Think about that when they come for your evil indoctrinating churches.
[/quote]

Is this even serious?

183

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
That is the disconnect the Republicans don’t get . They want it both ways [/quote]

I’m not a Republican. I’m a registered Democrat. Genius.[/quote]

Registered liar, more like.[/quote]

Glad you guys are superior in the ability of staying on topic and missing the point.

184

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Lewd behavior?

So what bothers you is what you think goes on behind closed doors?

Think about that when they come for your evil indoctrinating churches.
[/quote]

Is this even serious?[/quote]

Yes, you consider some things lewd that other people are okay with.

So your whole act is a routine in order to get around the fact that you want to punish people because they think differently from you.

185

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Lewd behavior?

So what bothers you is what you think goes on behind closed doors?

Think about that when they come for your evil indoctrinating churches.
[/quote]

Is this even serious?[/quote]

Yes, you consider some things lewd that other people are okay with.

So your whole act is a routine in order to get around the fact that you want to punish people because they think differently from you. [/quote]

Punish? Punish whom, for what? What the hell are you talking about?

186

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I never agreed. I know it’s tough reading.
[/quote]

you said “Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought”

What wrong thought are they guilt of? Pretty much the only thing they have said publicly was they are against gay marriage so I assumed that was their wrong thought, unless they said something else recently I’m not aware of.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Please explain how, “if you follow this chicken burgers trail of donations it goes beyond more than just wrong thought.”[/quote]

Read up on their donations to organizations. Chic-fil-A didn’t do this, but personally would you eat somewhere you know donated money to the kkk?

187

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Lewd behavior?

So what bothers you is what you think goes on behind closed doors?

Think about that when they come for your evil indoctrinating churches.
[/quote]

Is this even serious?[/quote]

Yes, you consider some things lewd that other people are okay with.[/quote]

Yes, most people who want to do bad things are usually okay with them. That does not mean they are still not bad and in some cases regulated. Saying someone is okay with lewd behavior is parallel to saying that someone is okay with doing something bad, from stealing to murder. Of course, why would they not be for it? They want to do it! They think it will be good for them, though they are mistaken, the ultimate reason why humans do things is because they think it is good. However, as rational creatures we are to use logic to figure out what things are good and what things are evil. However, the subjective opinion of a person does not determine whether most things are good or evil.

Quite telling that your attack of my argument is just reductionism in order to ridicule instead of putting forth a rational argument.

You’re still missing the dichotomy of action and thought. The fact that they think different is inconsequential, they have a first amendment right to have freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Let’s take an example of the guy up in Wisconsin. What I am point out is that, he has the freedom and right to believe that whites are superior, and he has the freedom of speech to voice this opinion, and he has the right to gather with like minded people to discuss why whites are superior (or bake cookies, idk). If he owned a business, the government would not have the right to close down his business or treat him differently because he’s a white supremacist.

However, his first amendment rights do not say that he can refuse service to non-whites based on skin color. It also does not say that he can kill a bunch of Sikhs at their Temple.

See the difference between a person having a different opinion and doing something evil? The action is always evil.

188

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I never agreed. I know it’s tough reading.
[/quote]

you said “Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought”

What wrong thought are they guilt of? Pretty much the only thing they have said publicly was they are against gay marriage so I assumed that was their wrong thought, unless they said something else recently I’m not aware of.[/quote]

Okay, then I did say they are guilty of wrong thought, however, only in the court of left-wing opinion. That court also has decided, that Chic-fil-A sentence is to be put out of business by force using such government agencies as the Mayor’s office, and NYC Council.

[quote]
Chic-fil-A didn’t do this, but personally would you eat somewhere you know donated money to the kkk?[/quote]

Please show where Chil-fil-A gave money to the KKK.

189

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sufiandy wrote:
Chic-fil-A didn’t do this, but personally would you eat somewhere you know donated money to the kkk?[/quote]

Please show where Chil-fil-A gave money to the KKK.[/quote]

I never said they gave money to them, hence me first saying “Chic-fil-A didn’t do this” to try and avoid confusion, but I see that didn’t work.

So hypothetically, would you eat somewhere knowing they donate money to the kkk?

190

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This whole fucking flap is for the benefit of the owner , he is laughing all the way to the bank. Who fucking care except Chic Fillet and the Religious Right ?[/quote]

Do you even actually understand the story? [/quote]

He obviously doesn’t. He just posted a video that associated contemporary American Christian conservatives with the Westboro Baptist Church. Fast forward to 0:35 to see it. PittBulll is obviously a leftist, which is fine, but he’s also very dishonest and seemingly incapable of understanding core issues being discussed.

191

[quote]hueyOT wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This whole fucking flap is for the benefit of the owner , he is laughing all the way to the bank. Who fucking care except Chic Fillet and the Religious Right ?[/quote]

Do you even actually understand the story? [/quote]

He obviously doesn’t. He just posted a video that associated contemporary American Christian conservatives with the Westboro Baptist Church. Fast forward to 0:35 to see it. PittBulll is obviously a leftist, which is fine, but he’s also very dishonest and seemingly incapable of understanding core issues being discussed.[/quote]

I posted a PIC of Westboro protestors…and was not comparing or associating them with anyone.

If you read my post, my point was that the Westboro case was a MUCH stronger one to argue the case for and against the limits of Freedom of Speech than the Chic-Fil-A one will EVER be.

Mufasa

192

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]hueyOT wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This whole fucking flap is for the benefit of the owner , he is laughing all the way to the bank. Who fucking care except Chic Fillet and the Religious Right ?[/quote]

Do you even actually understand the story? [/quote]

He obviously doesn’t. He just posted a video that associated contemporary American Christian conservatives with the Westboro Baptist Church. Fast forward to 0:35 to see it. PittBulll is obviously a leftist, which is fine, but he’s also very dishonest and seemingly incapable of understanding core issues being discussed.[/quote]

I posted a PIC of Westboro protestors…and was not comparing or associating them with anyone.

If you read my post, my point was that the Westboro case was a MUCH stronger one to argue the case for and against the limits of Freedom of Speech than the Chic-Fil-A one will EVER be.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Actually, the very first video you posted in this thread implies that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of mainstream Christian conservatives with respect to its approach to homosexuality and opposition to so-called “gay marriage”. Fast forwards to the 0:35 mark in the video and you will see it for yourself. I forget that guy’s name, but he’s an ignorant leftist comedian who occasionally shows up on CNN.

193

I haven’t posted a video.

You’ve got the wrong guy, Huey.

Mufasa

194

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I haven’t posted a video.

You’ve got the wrong guy, Huey.

Mufasa[/quote]

My apologies, it was pittbulll. Although you did reply to me first, and it was confusing.

195

No problem.

Mufasa

196

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Lewd behavior?

So what bothers you is what you think goes on behind closed doors?

Think about that when they come for your evil indoctrinating churches.
[/quote]

Is this even serious?[/quote]

Yes, you consider some things lewd that other people are okay with.

So your whole act is a routine in order to get around the fact that you want to punish people because they think differently from you. [/quote]

Punish? Punish whom, for what? What the hell are you talking about?
[/quote]

He seems to think that ordinances against strip clubs have nothing to do with how the people operating are thinking, but their “lewdness”.

“Lewdness” however is in the eye of the beholder and I hope that he will remember his stance when they shut down his church because it “corrupts” children, also something very much in the eye of the beholder.

197

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sufiandy wrote:
Chic-fil-A didn’t do this, but personally would you eat somewhere you know donated money to the kkk?[/quote]

Please show where Chil-fil-A gave money to the KKK.[/quote]

I never said they gave money to them, hence me first saying “Chic-fil-A didn’t do this” to try and avoid confusion, but I see that didn’t work.

So hypothetically, would you eat somewhere knowing they donate money to the kkk?[/quote]

No.

198

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Lewd behavior?

So what bothers you is what you think goes on behind closed doors?

Think about that when they come for your evil indoctrinating churches.
[/quote]

Is this even serious?[/quote]

Yes, you consider some things lewd that other people are okay with.

So your whole act is a routine in order to get around the fact that you want to punish people because they think differently from you. [/quote]

Punish? Punish whom, for what? What the hell are you talking about?
[/quote]

He seems to think that ordinances against strip clubs have nothing to do with how the people operating are thinking, but their “lewdness”.

“Lewdness” however is in the eye of the beholder and I hope that he will remember his stance when they shut down his church because it “corrupts” children, also something very much in the eye of the beholder.

[/quote]

You’d have to ignore evidence to believe it corrupts children. You however don’t have to be blind to see how a brothel or strip club is lewd.

199

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Like Fletch, I’m late to this and haven’t read all the post…

But isn’t this EXACTLY how Freedom of Speech is “supposed” to work?

1)The Chick-Fil-A President states his position, because he has that protected right

  1. People disagree and exercise THEIR right of freedom of speech.

  2. People disagree with THEM and exercise their right…and on-and-on it has gone.

Ron Emanuel and his cronies are political hacks, coddling to their base. (Liberals AND conservatives do a “great” job of that). There has been no legal movement WHATSOEVER to “ban” a Chick-Fil-A in certain parts of Chicago…and there never will be.

One thing that is often forgotten in these arguments, though…Freedom of Speech does not afford one a protective bubble from the consequences of that Speech. If someone’s “retaliation” is illegal, yes…but otherwise it doesn’t.

Lastly…I think that this whole thing is a VERY poor example of the protection of Freedom of Speech. The Westboro Baptist Church protest at fallen Soldiers and Marines funerals tested, and asked MUCH more fundamental questions, than this case will ever even come CLOSE to addressing.

Mufasa[/quote]

200

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Like Fletch, I’m late to this and haven’t read all the post…

But isn’t this EXACTLY how Freedom of Speech is “supposed” to work?

1)The Chick-Fil-A President states his position, because he has that protected right

  1. People disagree and exercise THEIR right of freedom of speech.

  2. People disagree with THEM and exercise their right…and on-and-on it has gone.

Ron Emanuel and his cronies are political hacks, coddling to their base. (Liberals AND conservatives do a “great” job of that). There has been no legal movement WHATSOEVER to “ban” a Chick-Fil-A in certain parts of Chicago…and there never will be.

One thing that is often forgotten in these arguments, though…Freedom of Speech does not afford one a protective bubble from the consequences of that Speech. If someone’s “retaliation” is illegal, yes…but otherwise it doesn’t.

Lastly…I think that this whole thing is a VERY poor example of the protection of Freedom of Speech. The Westboro Baptist Church protest at fallen Soldiers and Marines funerals tested, and asked MUCH more fundamental questions, than this case will ever even come CLOSE to addressing.

Mufasa[/quote]

I am more commenting on the picture than the post , but in this case people should be able to slap some one’s face when they are rude , And in my opinion these children ought to learn this behavior is rude and Mom and Dad should have to deal with the consequences