MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
LOL, "radical thinking." In any case, the beliefs aren't the issue. It's the donating to campaigns to hurt other citizens.
Like Nabisco and Target?
So if a business owner has a religious viewpoint, it's wrong, but if not, it's right?
Let's be fair. Either it's alright for all businesses to have any non-violent political view, or admit that you're not being objective.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060726476 said:Don't forget "homophobia" and "fear," the libs favorite disparaging terms for those who disagree with them.
As I said before, "If you feel like a business is doing things that are going to hurt some of your citizens or your city, you shouldn't have to let it set up shop." This statement applies to everybody, including people who think unions are going to hurt their citizens.Would you still be rather neutral if Rahm said the same thing and substituted "unions"? Being willing to block a business license because a company used union labor? Probably not. I'm seeing that as a pretty good parallel. You?
Yes. Shame on Nabisco for their support of gay pride, which is nonpolitical. Shame on Target for their radical societal position that gay people exist and may want to buy greeting cards.
How, precisely, will homosexuals be discriminated against?
First Sir, I need my question answered. What did Target and Nabisco declare? Then, I will answer your question. OK?
and shame on chik-fil-a for their radical societal position that christians exist and may want to buy a chicken sandwich.
I fail to see the difference....other than you support one position and not the other
I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owners beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.
It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."
I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owner's beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.
It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."
If opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians isn't homophobia, what is? If I told you that I'm not a racist, but miscegenation is an abomination and will happen only over my dead body, what would you think of me?
I don't support Rahm banning Chik-fil-a because I like it. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with governments doing so including those who would ban target. If you think a business is going to hurt your citizens or your area, then you don't need to let them set up shop there.I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owner's beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.
It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."
44 years of annual revenue increases, more than 1,600 restaurants in 39 states and Washington, D.C. and will open 77 stand-alone restaurants and 15 licensee locations in 2012. 600 plus professional staff employees with one of the industry leading minority hiring programs. 95 percent rate with many of their employees becoming franchise owners. Education benefits and insurance benefits. Im guessing in their 44 years more than a few employees have even been gay.
(yes...I read their marketing page).
Emanuel should DEFINITELY ram a stick in his citizens eye and drive that company out of their city. That will show em...
Let me get this right...you are comparing an organization supporting hate groups with money to organizations supporting same sex marriage?
Yeah...I don't think you get it.
ho·mo·pho·bi·a [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
but, of course, to you and yours any fear or antipathy towards homosexuals is unreasoning :shrug:
ho·mo·pho·bi·a [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
but, of course, to you and yours any fear or antipathy towards homosexuals is unreasoning :shrug:
Not really. He kind of missed the nail by a hundred feet on two counts.This. You hit the nail on the head.
I understand that you think it's alright to punish business owners who merely hold a stance not in favor of gay marriage. With a stance like that, I see no reason to answer that "question."
I don't buy the whole "homophobia" thing. People who dislike gay people for no other reason than they are gay can be summed up by a much better word. Stupid!
Do you think people who don't support gay marriage are stupid?
Do you think people who don't support gay marriage are stupid?
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?