- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Officials in at least three cities have vowed to block efforts to open Chick-fil-A restaurants after the company’s president told reporters that he supported the traditional definition of marriage – and warned that redefining marriage might bring God’s judgment on the nation.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE.
“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement to the Chicago Tribune. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”
Emanuel was vowing his support for Alderman Proco Moreno’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district.
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.
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.
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.
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when talking about politics.
thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
I laugh at that phrase to, its propaganda since that word is totally subjective
When a business owner is being prevented by government from opening a business because of his opinion on a subject, that certainly is meant to have a chilling effect on similar speech. Instead of pointing out the opinion and letting the market decide for themselves if they want to support the business, government seeks to prevent the business from ever opening. It's a dirty trick.thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
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.
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when theorizing about politics.
thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
When a business owner is being prevented by government from opening a business because of his opinion on a subject, that certainly is meant to have a chilling effect on similar speech. Instead of pointing out the opinion and letting the market decide for themselves if they want to support the business, government seeks to prevent the business from ever opening. It's a dirty trick.
Are you kidding me? What, other than expressing a political viewpoint, has this BUSINESS done wrong? Did they refuse to hire gays? Did they refuse to serve gays? You want no discrimination against gays (which was not even alleged) yet CHEER discriminating against those that choose to support traditional marraige, the current law? I suppose if a restaurant owner wanted polygamy or SSM that it would be welcomed, or if they simply said nothing at all on the subject; but say that you like the CURRENT definition of marriage and you should be banned? No, that could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with protected politcal speech. LOL
Yo, dude, it's a chicken sandwich. And if you and you're gay husband want to eat one, guess what, YOU CAN!
Actually, it does. This is the government saying that this business, these people, will be adversely impacted in government licensing because of the views they've expressed (legal, non-violent views). If this were just a case of a public boycott, then you'd be correct. But when the government does it - that's when the constitutional rights come into the picture.
And Chicago has values? I know about their traditional "value" of the dead voting and voting democratic. I know their "value" of having ward bosses determine elections.
I may not like Chik-Fil-As stance on SSM but I dont agree with blocking them from opening restaurants.
You don't understand. You are mistakenly conflating two separate things. Businesses do not have inalienable rights to open locations within cities. They have to apply for the license. Whichever city official makes that decision is not constitutionally bound to give the license to certain people. If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, there is nothing wrong with that. You act as though that decision-making process entails cutting the Gordian knot. What sort of things do you think goes into that decision?
now this is a point I can agree on as long as the actual stores arent doing anything wrong but his freedom of speech hasnt been infringed
effect? so what
doesnt stop his freedom of saying what ever he wants
I could go to Cleveland open a store and always wear steeler gear and say I love the steelers, that could effect my buisness too, or people could decided to boycott me because Im a steeler fan, again so what
my right to say I love the steelers hasnt been infringed on
now as far as if I think its the right move or not, well Id need more info currently it doesnt seem like it but my original point stands, this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech
lots fo things can happen because of what one might say, the right and freedom to do so is still there
Yeah, and the worst part is that some people actually think it's been static for all of human history, Western civilization, or whatever parameters you want. When of course the definition of marriage has changed many, many, many times over the centuries, and almost always for the better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?