When they support heterosexual marriage, they have a certain vision in mind
It appears you don’t
Gov’t recognizing heterosexual marriages is supposed to help bring in and / or keep that vision
gay marriage doesn’t
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said that Chick fil A’s values were not “Chicago values.”
lol what a douche
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?[/quote]
I think so, what part do you have a problem with now?[/quote]
People have a problem with strip-clubs not because they are guilty of wrong thought, but because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior. Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought, not because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior (unless you consider selling the best fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries lewd).
[/quote]
That’s the thing, if you follow this chicken burgers trail of donations it goes beyond more than just wrong thought. Like your strip club example, both problems are debatable depending on who you ask. This is why its a good example and fits in a grey area instead of black and white.
Also I am happy to see you agree that their stance of gay marriage is guilty of wrong thought.
[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 
Or if you are saying you understand America better than I. either way it is your right
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?[/quote]
I think so, what part do you have a problem with now?[/quote]
People have a problem with strip-clubs not because they are guilty of wrong thought, but because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior. Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought, not because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior (unless you consider selling the best fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries lewd).
There is a difference between a business’ actions and a business’ beliefs. For example, if a grocery store owner thinks prostitution is a good idea there is no cause to shut down the grocery store. However, if that owner runs a brothel…you have cause to shut down the brothel. [/quote]
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]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Big Government wants involved in something that is none of it’s business , small government could give a flying fuck
[/quote]
Yes, small government would not attempt to redefine marriage from between a man and his wife. We agree. :)[/quote]
No, they would simply stay out of it, thus not creating an issue.
But now, being in the thick of it as they are it is an issue of basic fairness.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?[/quote]
I think so, what part do you have a problem with now?[/quote]
People have a problem with strip-clubs not because they are guilty of wrong thought, but because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior. Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought, not because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior (unless you consider selling the best fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries lewd).
There is a difference between a business’ actions and a business’ beliefs. For example, if a grocery store owner thinks prostitution is a good idea there is no cause to shut down the grocery store. However, if that owner runs a brothel…you have cause to shut down the brothel. [/quote]
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]
Well since we are on the subject of strip clubs it might be best to stick to sexual acts, I heard those go on in catholic churches too.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.[/quote]
It wouldn’t? A small government still regulates behavior, even right at the beginning of this country was murder considered illegal and was punishable by law. Or, are you trying to insinuate that if murder in the case of abortion was made illegal that mothers would be prosecuted?
Because there is no precedent for that, as English law for a few hundred years or so has considered the mothers to be the second victim. Which makes sense…because they are.[/quote]
Abortion? Shiet brah, I was talkin’ 'bout contraception.
[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.
I’m late in the game so sorry if I’m rehashing. Chicago or any other city shouldn’t have any right to ban Chik-fil-a for what the owner said. It’s discriminatory against religious belief plain and simple. If people really do have enough of a problem with it in Chicago, then they won’t set up business in Chicago from falling business sales. Honestly I don’t see that happening, but they may take a hit… or they may not.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.[/quote]
That is the disconnect the Republicans don’t get . They want it both ways [/quote]
I actually agree with this sentiment, however, democrats don’t get it either. Expansion of services is an extension of government control. The second you hand someone money, they are indebted to you, hence you levy some degree of control over them. “You want to keep getting this money or service? You must behave or exist in this way to continue to get it.”
That in many ways, is worse than executing legislation that seems oppressive. You can break a law so long as no one is looking. When you’re on someone’s financial leash, you simply cannot stray to far or they will jerk your chain.
Nothing is for free, ever, you always pay in someway, I’d rather not pay with my freedom. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you cannot get them back in, so be careful which lamp you rub.
You are not going to fix poverty, hunger, disease, or any other social malady by ceding control to the government. All you do is create poor, hungry and sick dependents which is, in the end, just another problem, not a solution.
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
-
People disagree and exercise THEIR right of freedom of speech.
-
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]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
No it’s actually not. He is not speaking as a private citizen, he is speaking as a public servent, which in this case is libelous.
He is responsible for any harm his words do to his constituents, which the Chick-fil-a’s in his area are under his jurisdiction. He does not have a right to harm their business and is responsible if he does.
Legally, Chick-Fil-A would find it almost impossible to prove or even imply that they were harmed by Emanuel’s words.
In fact, traffic and sales went up accross the Nation; and there is little evidence that there will be any long term effects, especially for a Company based mostly in the Conservative South.
Mufasa
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I actually agree with this sentiment, however, democrats don’t get it either. Expansion of services is an extension of government control. The second you hand someone money, they are indebted to you, hence you levy some degree of control over them. “You want to keep getting this money or service? You must behave or exist in this way to continue to get it.”
That in many ways, is worse than executing legislation that seems oppressive. You can break a law so long as no one is looking. When you’re on someone’s financial leash, you simply cannot stray to far or they will jerk your chain.
Nothing is for free, ever, you always pay in someway, I’d rather not pay with my freedom. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you cannot get them back in, so be careful which lamp you rub.
You are not going to fix poverty, hunger, disease, or any other social malady by ceding control to the government. All you do is create poor, hungry and sick dependents which is, in the end, just another problem, not a solution.[/quote]Very VERY good Pat.
Also, if the leftist pols really believe that ANY certain restaurant owner’s values are abhorrent to the potential clientele under their jurisdiction then LET that company spend their time and money setting up shop there and the market will chase them out at a loss. A double win. They will not do it that way because they do not trust the sensibilities of their constituents to necessarily make the politically correct determination so they must, like good nanny state parents, make that determination for them.
By the way…
Their Spicy Deluxe with pepperjack cheese, lettuce and tomato is to DIE for!
Top if off with some Lemonade and their killer fries?
CHICAGO’S LOSS, baby!
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Legally, Chick-Fil-A would find it almost impossible to prove or even imply that they were harmed by Emanuel’s words.
In fact, traffic and sales went up accross the Nation; and there is little evidence that there will be any long term effects, especially for a Company based mostly in the Conservative South.
Mufasa[/quote]
I agree. And You cannot sue for future damages so…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Legally, Chick-Fil-A would find it almost impossible to prove or even imply that they were harmed by Emanuel’s words.
In fact, traffic and sales went up accross the Nation; and there is little evidence that there will be any long term effects, especially for a Company based mostly in the Conservative South.
Mufasa[/quote]
I agree. And You cannot sue for future damages so…
[/quote]True, but zoning or taxation trickery etc. may be another story.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Legally, Chick-Fil-A would find it almost impossible to prove or even imply that they were harmed by Emanuel’s words.
In fact, traffic and sales went up accross the Nation; and there is little evidence that there will be any long term effects, especially for a Company based mostly in the Conservative South.
Mufasa[/quote]
Damages maybe not, but slander is libel too. It’s border line I agree, but the Mayor is not doing himself any favors. The views of a private citizen, does not entitle this mayor to call them names, threaten them with action, or degrade them in anyway. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but the things he said he cannot really say without the expectation of legal ramifications.
Chick-fil-a does not have to win a case to make his life miserable, they can tie up millions of City dollars by simply bringing the case. So even if this idiot wins, he still loses.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?[/quote]
I think so, what part do you have a problem with now?[/quote]
People have a problem with strip-clubs not because they are guilty of wrong thought, but because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior. Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought, not because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior (unless you consider selling the best fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries lewd).
[/quote]
That’s the thing, if you follow this chicken burgers trail of donations it goes beyond more than just wrong thought. Like your strip club example, both problems are debatable depending on who you ask. This is why its a good example and fits in a grey area instead of black and white.
Also I am happy to see you agree that their stance of gay marriage is guilty of wrong thought.[/quote]
I never agreed. I know it’s tough reading.
Please explain how, “if you follow this chicken burgers trail of donations it goes beyond more than just wrong thought.”