- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Cathy is still free to speak his mind. Cathy isn't a registered voter in Chicago so Rahm Emanuel isn't obligated to represent him.
The whole concept is complete bull**** and hypocrisy. Any person on he supporting Boston's Mayor would be SCREAMING till their head exploded if a southern state specifically claim that homosexuality is an abomination and were going to not allow a Target to be built in their city. But as is typical liberal style, in this case it supports their agenda so it's okay. No wonder our country is so ****ed up.
Speaking of Target, They are touted as a gay friendly company but they also support anti gay politicians. That however gets overlooked with a wink and a nod so long as [big corporate] Target keeps the benjamins flowing to the groups that support the gay cause.
And can you point me to the amendment where it says you have a right to a business permit anywhere you want?
Cathy isn't running a strip club, so your analogy fails. It would only be accurate if Cathy ran a christian strip-club, and Joe ran a Jewish strip-club...then Cathy runs her mouth about gays so you close her down, yet leave Joe alone because he left his mouth shut.
last I checked...chik-fil-a was not a govt employee, so your comparison is invalid. as a member of the military, my free speech is limited in certain circumstances...none of which apply to the average citizen.
I don't know I think its something of a gray area. For example, could a city not grant a business license to a white supremacist group?
it's not OK to deny a business because it is gay. but it is OK to deny a business because it doesn't like gays
it's not OK to deny a business because it is minority. but it is OK to deny a business because it does not like minorities
hypocrisy...what a concept
My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
Since I am arguing both sides of this to a degree, it would be interesting to see how many posters on here that are all up in arms of Chick Fil A not having "Chicago Values", were against the so called "ground zero mosque".
Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.
The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.
Do you know how many communities wouldn't think a gay night club would be a good fit for the community?No, Cathy is still free to speak his mind. The leaders of communities don't believe Chick Fil-A's values would be a good fit for their community.
Sure they would and I have seen a strip club (well a "novelty" store actually) challenge a denial and win specifically because the city couldn't prove any grounds not to allow the business. Meh, we don't want those here, is evidently not a valid reason to deny a legal business the ability to operate.If Cathy ran a strip club no one would think twice about a permit being denied based on that freedom of expression.
the govt would be doing exactly that: looking to punish the company for it's adoption of unpopular ideas
Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.
The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.
Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.
The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.
Wouldn't it be great if they got rid of Hooters too?
Edit: I guess Hooters is gone from Boston, but because of bankruptcy.
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, he can give it whomever he pleases.
Your analogy fails because not all Christians are anti-gay. I know a gay pastor of two Christian churches.
It's only punishment if they had revoked a previously granted business permit. You don't have an automatic right to a business permit.
This is like saying that every woman you haven't slept with is punishing you by withholding sex.
so maybe you would be willing to answer the question hatuey avoids....
so a local govt has a right to deny a black man a business license because their values state blacks should not own businesses?
Do you know how many communities wouldn't think a gay night club would be a good fit for the community?
Sure they would and I have seen a strip club (well a "novelty" store actually) challenge a denial and win specifically because the city couldn't prove any grounds not to allow the business. Meh, we don't want those here, is evidently not a valid reason to deny a legal business the ability to operate.
what about selling chicken do you think clashes with the values of chicago? Again, we are not talking about an attempt to to limit the type of commercial activity someone participates in here (selling booze), but taking punitive measures against a company for the political speech of it's owners
I'm sure lots of communities feel that way. This straw man won't work on me.
And who is the judge of a valid reason to deny a business permit?
And who is the judge of a valid reason to deny a business permit?
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?