- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,859
- Reaction score
- 30,124
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Blacks and women should have done the same thing too, right? Not fight for their civil rights? (And yeah, both were discriminated against for religious and moral reasons...sadly, several Scriptures were mal-interpreted as 'proof' that blacks were inferior.)
Or....you still dont respect blacks or women either because they did fight for their civil rights?
Where the hell are you coming up with this stuff? Chick Filet did not and does not discriminate against any group, LGBT or anyone. The CEO merely expressed his own personal opinion.....which has absolutely nothing with Chick Filet business practices.
That's the key. If the LGBT lobby wants respect, they should respect those who do not agree with them for religious or moral reasons. Chick Filet did nothing wrong. The CEO was only expressing his own views. The LGBT attempted to act as "thought police" and it backfired on them.
Blacks and women should have done the same thing too, right? Not fight for their civil rights? (And yeah, both were discriminated against for religious and moral reasons...sadly, several Scriptures were mal-interpreted as 'proof' that blacks were inferior.)
Or....you still dont respect blacks or women either because they did fight for their civil rights?
1.)How does the FedGov have the authority to make it illegal??
2.)You can make it illegal on the state level, but even then it is wrong.
3.)Of course there is force, lol... the government FORCING the private business owner to engage in commerce with people he does not want to. His rights are being violated by the government.
4.)The LGBT people may in fact be discriminated against by the business owner, but then again he owns a PRIVATE BUSINESS, in a free society it is his business to run as he sees fit.
5.) In an authoritarian society - which is what you, and all leftists advocate, his "private business" is not his to run as he sees fit, rather it is under the control of the government. That is fascism.
6.)Only thru tortured and twisted interpretations of the Constitution can such a power be granted to the FedGov. Again, if you want to pass such a law on the state level, that is entirely proper - just as Indiana's law is entirely proper.
7.)"Freedom" is the limitation of government. "Equal rights" is not a concept conceived in liberty, it is a concept conceived in authoritarian forms of government, most notably communism. In this case fascism.
8.)It is obvious you are lacking a proper Americanist education - as are almost all Amerikans. It has been the proverbial slow boiling of the frog - over 100 years in the making. Time was when Americans clearly understood the principles of freedom; now, most Amerikans are like you - sadly.
1.) if you are already this lost I dont know if i can help you. maybe the refer to the many many court cases that refer to laws, rights and the constitution, start there and lets us know>
2.) says who? your opinions. many courts cases, laws and the constitution disagree with you
3.) so they forced him to open up a shop a specifically serve somebody, wow can you post a link showing where that happened
4.) again there is no such right, you cant run it as you see fit LMAO
5.) more fantasy, sorry what you want is anarchy . . . no thanks I like freedom and rights
6.) who brought up Indiana???? and anyway you mean all the court cases and many many many judges that just simply used the Constitution and precedence? LOL
7.) more subjective opinions that you cant back up with any "facts"
8.) oh so all the judges and court cases and precedence and the constitution is wrong but YOU are right?:lamo
well when you get a change simply post the facts that support your failed and proven wrong claims, we would love to read them. thanks!
1.)To be sure the courts have been butchering and expanding the meaning of the Constitution for decades - to now where it means pretty much nothing in terms of constraining the power of the FedGov.
2.)To leftists this is, of course, a wonderful thing b/c in your view the government should be unchained to do "good" things for those less fortunate, to make life "fair", etc...
3.)That is a bill of goods though. It is the Establishment that has been packing the court since FDR, and the agenda of the Establishment has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism or helping anyone. Their agenda is one of power - power over the people. Since they control the government, and the government is increasingly gaining power and control over the people, it only makes sense that they would back any scheme are strategy that speeds them along that path.
4.)Just as in most authoritarian societies, the lowest on the socioeconomic scale are the easiest targets to ensnare, indoctrinate, and put out in front of the fight. Here in the U.S., any cause will do - racism, sexual minorities, illegal immigrants, women... anyone who is ignorant and/or dishonest enough to think their advancement trumps the rights of others.
5.)Those of you arguing that the FedGov has the authority to force private citizens to engage in commerce against their will, purchase financial instruments against their will, tell the how much they can make, who they have to hire, who they can't fire, etc... you are arguing in favor of authoritarian rule. Just b/c you rationalize that that rule is being directed at the behest of the majority of citizens does not make it any less authoritarian, anti-American, and anti-liberty.
Quick comment here folks...
I see a lot of people going on and on about not caring about a businesses "political/social views on issues".
That's not really a question here.
If a business is actively discriminating against hiring or selling to a particular group of people, that is not a "political/social view"...that is a BUSINESS PRACTICE.
I doubt anyone here would suggest that the business practices of a business don't impact your decision as to whether or not you shop there. NOW, what may be accurate is that business practices that don't negative affect YOU may not hold much sway with you, but it's still a business practice that's being talked about.
Not boycotting based on the political views of the businesses owners would mean not caring whether or not the owner, personally, gives money or support to political entities. That's different than actually implimenting a business policy.
That, to me, would be the difference between Chick-Fil-A's philanthropic arm giving money to groups that fight gay rights, and Chick-Fil-A actually banning gay customers from their store. The first is a political view held by the company's leadership, the latter is an actual business practice.
If a business bases their business practices on their personal beliefs, then they are making a political and/or social statement with their business.Quick comment here folks...
I see a lot of people going on and on about not caring about a businesses "political/social views on issues".
That's not really a question here.
If a business is actively discriminating against hiring or selling to a particular group of people, that is not a "political/social view"...that is a BUSINESS PRACTICE.
I doubt anyone here would suggest that the business practices of a business don't impact your decision as to whether or not you shop there. NOW, what may be accurate is that business practices that don't negative affect YOU may not hold much sway with you, but it's still a business practice that's being talked about.
Not boycotting based on the political views of the businesses owners would mean not caring whether or not the owner, personally, gives money or support to political entities. That's different than actually implimenting a business policy.
That, to me, would be the difference between Chick-Fil-A's philanthropic arm giving money to groups that fight gay rights, and Chick-Fil-A actually banning gay customers from their store. The first is a political view held by the company's leadership, the latter is an actual business practice.
If a business bases their business practices on their personal beliefs, then they are making a political and/or social statement with their business.
Generic comment.
Yes, they're making the political statement with their business...but they're still doing it with a business practice. It is not simply or singularly a "political statement" any longer, but also a business practice. And I also don't think a political statement is exactly the same as a political view. One's an action, one's a thought.
The business owner has a view. He puts that view into action to make a statement, and he does it by instituting a business practice.
I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.
An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.
Right. That's what I said.But the view can exist without the action. A person can believe that same sex marriage is wrong without discriminating against homosexuals or same sex couples in their business, even when it comes to providing services for same sex weddings. It's the same for so many other views too. A person can believe condoms or birth control are wrong and still be able to sell those items to others, but simply not use them themselves.I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.
An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.
I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.
An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.
Saying you don't serve certain people is a business decision like that, where the owner decides his views, what makes him comfortable is more important than the business and it's customers. So, from a philosophical viewpoint would never visit such a business establishment but it is also a business decision that shows the owners priorities.
Maybe what I wrote makes no sense whatsoever but that's how I make the distinction.
I was commenting on the bold, not Chic fillet. And my comment was re: your opinion, not the CF CEO's.
It was about not respecting people that had to fight for their civil rights.
Once again, Chick Filet did nothing wrong. The CEO expressed his own opinions....which had nothing whatsoever with Chick Filet's business practices. They do not practice discrimination against anyone. Get over it.
I was commenting on the bold, not Chic fillet. And my comment was re: your opinion, not the CF CEO's.
.
??? What part of this wasnt clear? I said nothing like what you just posted.
Can you support *your opinion*?
I absolutely can, sport. I am just not likely to bother with those who make up their own interpretations when not liking the answers.
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?
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?