Chicago's discrimination

[Korriken]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-blocked-opening-chi cago-store/story?id=16853890#.UBLKYqOCiSo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/chick-fil-a-chicago -owner_n_1705712.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago

Basically, the president, Dan Cathy, makes a statement against gay marriage and now Alderman Proco Mareno and Mayor Rahm Emanuel are wanting to block the company from opening a new restaurant in Chicago.

and apparently it's happening in Boston too. If I was in Dan's shoes I would actively try to set up shop in both cities just to piss off their mayors, then sue the shit out of them when they try to stonewall me because of my beliefs, because, this isn't Iran, we DO have the freedom to believe as we will and speak our minds without the government punishing us for it.

Here's my take on it.

It's none of the government's business what a person believes in. It's not the government's place to try to keep people the administration's leaders don't like from opening shop if they've done nothing illegal. Last I checked, having your own beliefs is perfectly legal.

This is a clear cut case of discrimination. and yes, I would be saying the same thing if some place wanted to block a company from opening something if they had a public pro gay president. you let such a thing start happening and everything will go to hell in a hurry when a city can actively stonewall people from opening businesses because of their beliefs.

Is the left really so intolerant of those who don't think the way they do that they would deny job creators from setting up shop, thus not boosting their economy, just to preserve their way of thinking? sad.

[Light]

At 7/27/12 01:23 PM, Korriken wrote:
Is the left really so intolerant of those who don't think the way they do that they would deny job creators from setting up shop, thus not boosting their economy, just to preserve their way of thinking? sad.

I hope you're not implying that the Right is not at least as intolerant.

Because that would just be foolish on many levels.

[Camarohusky]

What Chicago is doing is illegal. What Boston is doing is 100% correct and should be encouraged.

Restricting a person's ability to use property because of their beleifs is a violation of the first Amendment.

Telling smeone who holds beliefs that openly, nefariously, and satanically seek to harm those close to you, that you don't want them around but not using any method to actually keep them from being there is not only legal, but valiant.

If Chick fil a wants to cherry pick the bible, or comment on what's natural whilst serving processed bird shit, they're fine to do so. But NO PERSON can ever legitimately say that trying to harm others for the pure sake of harming them is ever a valiant cause.

I say We should all get some money to buy every ticket to the Chick fil a Bowl and fill it with Bears, and constantly sing "it's raining men". If Chik fil a's Pres. doesn't want gay people around, let's shove gay people down his satanic, unchristian, and unamerican throat.

[RydiaLockheart]

Pittsburgh's mayor is doing the same.

It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the CEO's stance and say "I don't want you here." What is NOT okay is messing with the law to keep Chick-Fil-A out of cities. Then again, as we've seen, Rahm Emanuel tends to operate on the edges of the law, if not breaking it outright. If Chick-Fil-A were discriminating against employees or customers, then there would be a case. But as it stands right now, banning them for their views would begin a very slippery slope.

This is one of many reasons I am no longer a liberal. They call out conservatives for unacceptable behavior, but turn around and do the same.

[Korriken]

At 7/27/12 01:31 PM, Light wrote:

I hope you're not implying that the Right is not at least as intolerant.

Because that would just be foolish on many levels.

ok then, you show me an instance of someone on the right telling a business that they're not welcome in their city and/or actively trying to stop a business from getting set up because of the beliefs of the business owner/president/ceo/whatever.

At 7/27/12 01:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: What Chicago is doing is illegal. What Boston is doing is 100% correct and should be encouraged.

yeah Boston is keeping it legal. Personally I would set up in boston anyway.

Restricting a person's ability to use property because of their beleifs is a violation of the first Amendment.

Telling smeone who holds beliefs that openly, nefariously, and satanically seek to harm those close to you, that you don't want them around but not using any method to actually keep them from being there is not only legal, but valiant.

Exactly HOW is Chick-Fil-A Nefariously and Satanically harm someone?

If Chick fil a wants to cherry pick the bible, or comment on what's natural whilst serving processed bird shit, they're fine to do so. But NO PERSON can ever legitimately say that trying to harm others for the pure sake of harming them is ever a valiant cause.

*head scratch* where are you getting this from? I can't find anything in Chick fil a openly wanting to harm anyone

I say We should all get some money to buy every ticket to the Chick fil a Bowl and fill it with Bears, and constantly sing "it's raining men". If Chik fil a's Pres. doesn't want gay people around, let's shove gay people down his satanic, unchristian, and unamerican throat.

do I detect a little hatred there?

[morefngdbs]

THe land of the Free !

As long as you never go against the "popular OPINIONS"...then you are free in the ole USA.

Or that's how its looking more & more in your country from those of us looking south !

[Camarohusky]

At 7/28/12 11:49 AM, Korriken wrote: Exactly HOW is Chick-Fil-A Nefariously and Satanically harm someone?

I only use the term satanically to show the Owner how far his hating views have placed him from the religion he claims to speak for.

*head scratch* where are you getting this from? I can't find anything in Chick fil a openly wanting to harm anyone

Then why are they striving o make a certain group a second class of people?

do I detect a little hatred there?

No. Just making fun of those who like to discriminate in the name of love and freedom. Guess "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean anything to those "Christians".

[adrshepard]

At 7/28/12 03:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I only use the term satanically to show the Owner how far his hating views have placed him from the religion he claims to speak for.

I'd say "hating" is a pretty strong word. He believes that marraige, as he understands it with all its tradition and etc., is between a man and a woman. I think he probably defines marraige as something more than "being able to see a loved one in the hospital" or "getting shared tax returns." It's not the same as trying to suppress the rights of gays under the law out of hatred, though the end results may be similar because of how entangled a religious ceremony has become with the law.

Also, what about the alderman's fall-back defense about traffic and congestion? He could just use that and avoid the whole 1st amendment issue.

[Light]

At 7/28/12 11:49 AM, Korriken wrote:

ok then, you show me an instance of someone on the right telling a business that they're not welcome in their city and/or actively trying to stop a business from getting set up because of the beliefs of the business owner/president/ceo/whatever.

None exist to my knowledge, but the Right is just as intolerant in different ways.

[morefngdbs]

At 7/29/12 08:57 AM, Light wrote: None exist to my knowledge, but the Right is just as intolerant in different ways.

;;;;

I can't remember hwo said it, but one time it seemed that the majority of Americans went by the idea of.
" I don't agree at all with what he's saying, but I will defend to the death his right to say it"

Isn't that what your Country was founded on ?
Sure people have differences & you or anyone else are SUPPOSE TO BE free to agree & or disagree, but you don't sanction someone for saying something you disagree with !
Yet IMO that seems to be exactly what is happening & its your elected representitives who are doing so !

WHat has happened to that value ?
And where are all the people who once would have stood up & say ,he may be an asshole in his views, but he has that right ?

[Korriken]

At 7/29/12 08:57 AM, Light wrote:

None exist to my knowledge, but the Right is just as intolerant in different ways.

then don't try to make the argument if you got no proof. the right may try to block laws they don't like and pass the ones they do despite what others think, but at least you don't see people on the right actively trying to silence law abiding citizens through abuse of their position, making thinly veiled or outright overt threats, or sending in their very own mobs to get their way.

The biggest problem with the right is that they don't play half as nasty as the left does.

Look at the Tea Party vs the Occupy Protestors.

How many places did the tea party leave a horrible mess for the local government to clean up?
How many times did the local government have to force the tea party out?
how many times did the tea party riot?
How many crimes did people in the tea party commit in the name of the tea party?

now replace tea party with occupy wall street and ask those same questions.

I mean the left cling onto anything they can use to smear the tea party, including the Aurora Colorado mass shooting, they dug through a list of tea party members, found someone who has a matching name, didn't bother to check the age and location of the tea party member, then trumpeted it and made an ass of themselves.

Also, this where was this she-cow when the occupy protestors were destroying everything and rioting? oh right, she was cheering them on.

so basically "Do whatever you want, just don't disagree with us"

[Camarohusky]

At 7/28/12 11:49 AM, Korriken wrote: ok then, you show me an instance of someone on the right telling a business that they're not welcome in their city and/or actively trying to stop a business from getting set up because of the beliefs of the business owner/president/ceo/whatever.

Mosque. 'Nuff said.

[Light]

At 7/29/12 10:55 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/29/12 08:57 AM, Light wrote:

None exist to my knowledge, but the Right is just as intolerant in different ways.

then don't try to make the argument if you got no proof.

I never actually tried to make an argument that the Right is just as intolerant as the left in the same way, though. I just said that the Right is just as intolerant as the left. Period.

the right may try to block laws they don't like and pass the ones they do despite what others think, but at least you don't see people on the right actively trying to silence law abiding citizens through abuse of their position, making thinly veiled or outright overt threats, or sending in their very own mobs to get their way.

Crazy Christian right-wingers are prone to do that or actions that are just as heinous.

The biggest problem with the right is that they don't play half as nasty as the left does.

Look at the Tea Party vs the Occupy Protestors.

How many places did the tea party leave a horrible mess for the local government to clean up?
How many times did the local government have to force the tea party out?
how many times did the tea party riot?
How many crimes did people in the tea party commit in the name of the tea party?

now replace tea party with occupy wall street and ask those same questions.

I mean the left cling onto anything they can use to smear the tea party, including the Aurora Colorado mass shooting, they dug through a list of tea party members, found someone who has a matching name, didn't bother to check the age and location of the tea party member, then trumpeted it and made an ass of themselves.

Kind of like Rush Limbaugh and other prominent right-wingers do on a near day-to-day basis.

Seriously, I don't feel any shame in saying I'm liberal as fuck, but I freely admit that those who are politically active in some way or another do the inane shit that you describe not because they adhere to a certain ideology, but because they stand to gain.

It's sad that you feel that right-wingers have the moral high ground when it comes to these kinds of things when their objectives are the same as their opponents'.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/28/12 05:12 PM, adrshepard wrote: I'd say "hating" is a pretty strong word. He believes that marraige, as he understands it with all its tradition and etc., is between a man and a woman. I think he probably defines marraige as something more than "being able to see a loved one in the hospital" or "getting shared tax returns." It's not the same as trying to suppress the rights of gays under the law out of hatred, though the end results may be similar because of how entangled a religious ceremony has become with the law.

Then I think he should be spending his money ombatting divorce, or combatting the sexual fantasy many women have with weddings (to the point that they kinda forget that weddings are for th marriage, not the other way around). If he truly believes in the "tradition of marriage" as you so claim, he seems to be wasting his time on the flamboyant cat in the room instead of the elephant and the 800 pound gorilla. Why would he do that? Oh yeah, out of hatred.

Also, what about the alderman's fall-back defense about traffic and congestion? He could just use that and avoid the whole 1st amendment issue.

Pretext. His comments have already given a perfect grounds for a good pretext claim. Beyond that, the next time a McDonalds (which has a shit ton more traffic than Chick-fil-"people actually eat here?"-a) the Alderman's argument goes right down the toilet.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

well he is not stopping gays from entering the door making them leave it or firing gay employees so what the Mayors are doing is technically illegal, and put in a compromising position if it went to court.

but what do you expect?

[Korriken]

At 7/29/12 05:51 PM, Light wrote:

I never actually tried to make an argument that the Right is just as intolerant as the left in the same way, though. I just said that the Right is just as intolerant as the left. Period.

you still need proof.

Crazy Christian right-wingers are prone to do that or actions that are just as heinous.

proof.

The biggest problem with the right is that they don't play half as nasty as the left does.

Seriously, I don't feel any shame in saying I'm liberal as fuck, but I freely admit that those who are politically active in some way or another do the inane shit that you describe not because they adhere to a certain ideology, but because they stand to gain.

Obviously. if there was no political gain to be had, they would be sitting on their asses staring at a wall (or at least doing something else)

It's sad that you feel that right-wingers have the moral high ground when it comes to these kinds of things when their objectives are the same as their opponents'.

Objectives and methods used are 2 different things. I can get a person to leave me alone by walking away from him and not making contact with said person. I can also get the person to leave me alone by pulling out a gun and blowing his face off. Naturally, the latter method is frowned upon and is in fact a crime in most places.

Moral high ground? nah. politicians are politicians. Scumbags. However methods both sides use can be quite different.

[Korriken]

At 7/29/12 05:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Why would he do that? Oh yeah, out of hatred.

I think the only hatred we see here is coming from you.

Pretext. His comments have already given a perfect grounds for a good pretext claim. Beyond that, the next time a McDonalds (which has a shit ton more traffic than Chick-fil-"people actually eat here?"-a) the Alderman's argument goes right down the toilet.

I love waffle fries. om nom nom. their sandwiches are ok.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/29/12 11:02 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/29/12 05:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Why would he do that? Oh yeah, out of hatred.

I think the only hatred we see here is coming from you.

So defending the rights of others is hatred whilst actively seeking to restrict the rights of others out of pure malice is freedom?

Sorry, but I think you need a dictionary.

[Korriken]

At 7/29/12 11:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

So defending the rights of others is hatred whilst actively seeking to restrict the rights of others out of pure malice is freedom?

Sorry, but I think you need a dictionary.

don't get my started on the use of a dictionary when you used the word 'satanic' to describe opposition to gay marriage, which, in the religions Satan comes from, is an abomination of god.

I can sense your seething hatred for a business owner who has beliefs that differ from yours. Here you are, venting on how satanic and evil a person is for not supporting gay marriage. people have differing beliefs, believe it or not. some people believe homosexuality is wrong. some don't. This person does.

So I suppose that everyone who opposes gay marriage is evil satanic demons who only do so out of pure malice? hell of an appeal to emotion there. Certainly it has absolutely nothing to do with a person following their own beliefs, no, it just has to be because they're evil, evil people who single out the gay community.

*eyeroll*

[Light]

At 7/29/12 11:00 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/29/12 05:51 PM, Light wrote:

I never actually tried to make an argument that the Right is just as intolerant as the left in the same way, though. I just said that the Right is just as intolerant as the left. Period.

you still need proof.

Right-wingers have passed laws that discriminate against atheism, homosexuality,

Crazy Christian right-wingers are prone to do that or actions that are just as heinous.

proof.

Some blow up abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. Others want to outlaw the teaching of evolution.

And many sent death threats to the lady responsible for bringing a case to the Supreme Court which resulted in the prohibition of school prayer.

The biggest problem with the right is that they don't play half as nasty as the left does.

Seriously, I don't feel any shame in saying I'm liberal as fuck, but I freely admit that those who are politically active in some way or another do the inane shit that you describe not because they adhere to a certain ideology, but because they stand to gain.

Obviously. if there was no political gain to be had, they would be sitting on their asses staring at a wall (or at least doing something else)

If it's so obvious to you, then why do you act like the Left is so much more aggressive when they only seek to accomplish certain goals of theirs, just as the Right does?

It's sad that you feel that right-wingers have the moral high ground when it comes to these kinds of things when their objectives are the same as their opponents'.

Objectives and methods used are 2 different things. I can get a person to leave me alone by walking away from him and not making contact with said person. I can also get the person to leave me alone by pulling out a gun and blowing his face off. Naturally, the latter method is frowned upon and is in fact a crime in most places.

Moral high ground? nah. politicians are politicians. Scumbags. However methods both sides use can be quite different.

Funny, because you seem to act as if right-wing politicians are so much better morally than left-wing politicians.

There's nothing wrong with believing that, but if you do believe that, be honest about it.

[Light]

At 7/30/12 08:38 AM, Light wrote:

At 7/29/12 11:00 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/29/12 05:51 PM, Light wrote:

I never actually tried to make an argument that the Right is just as intolerant as the left in the same way, though. I just said that the Right is just as intolerant as the left. Period.

you still need proof.

Right-wingers have passed laws that discriminate against atheism, homosexuality,

Here, I meant to say "atheism, homosexuality, etc. etc." Whatever.

Also, right-wingers often fight against the passage of anti-discrimination legislation. Why? Intolerance.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/30/12 12:38 AM, Korriken wrote: don't get my started on the use of a dictionary when you used the word 'satanic' to describe opposition to gay marriage, which, in the religions Satan comes from, is an abomination of god.

You think I'd ever use satanic in a real sense? I'm usin it to shw the contradiction between the beliefs he holds na the religion he claims to support. Doing anything out of pure malice is the realm of Satan. Jesus taught Christians to lead with love and compassion. So when someone is using his money to further his malice, do you think he's following the teachings of Christ or is h following the propensities of Satan?

I can sense your seething hatred for a business owner who has beliefs that differ from yours. Here you are, venting on how satanic and evil a person is for not supporting gay marriage. people have differing beliefs, believe it or not. some people believe homosexuality is wrong. some don't. This person does.

I don't hate the guy. I don't know him. I do hate how he seeks to oppress certain people just because of their beliefs and views. If Mr. Cathy wants to be the most Christian Christian there ever was, that's all fine and dandy, but the moment he tries to effect/affect others in a negative way he has crossed the line. His actions are no different than schoolyard bullying, just insetad of physically and emotitonally harming one child for a short period of tie, he's looking to emotionally harm an entire group of people permanently. How is that not reproachable?

So I suppose that everyone who opposes gay marriage is evil satanic demons who only do so out of pure malice? hell of an appeal to emotion there. Certainly it has absolutely nothing to do with a person following their own beliefs, no, it just has to be because they're evil, evil people who single out the gay community.

Those who focus heavily on fighting homosexuality because it destroys the sanctity of marriage do so out of malice.
Those who focus heavily on fighting homosexuality because the Bible says so do so out of stupidity and malice.
Those who focus heavily on fighting homosexuality in the name of Christianity have been brainwashed by Satan into doing his bidding.

Until someone can give me a legitimate reason why we should strip the rights of others, there is no valiant reason to oppose gay marriage. Every single reason that has been supported has a major skeleton in its closet, usually in the form of cherry picking to to further a bias (based on either malice or no reason at all) against homosexuality. I mean, hell, the same group of people who want to fight gay marriage are the ones who believe it's a right to personally own tactical nuclear weapons, even though those actually can harm other people...

[homor]

Chick-Fil-A would be better off setting up shop in Iraq than Chicago, because at least Iraq has some security.

Seriously, getting banned from Chicago is like a blessing.

[Korriken]

At 7/30/12 11:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

You think I'd ever use satanic in a real sense? I'm usin it to shw the contradiction between the beliefs he holds na the religion he claims to support.

shitty way of doing it. try again. Show how being against gay marriage is contradictory to the christian religion.

Doing anything out of pure malice is the realm of Satan.

you fail to show where the malice is coming from. has he ever kicked a gay person? has he ever thrown one out of any of his restaurants? has he ever fired one for being gay?

Jesus taught Christians to lead with love and compassion. So when someone is using his money to further his malice, do you think he's following the teachings of Christ or is h following the propensities of Satan?

If it's anti gay? yes.

I don't hate the guy. I don't know him. I do hate how he seeks to oppress certain people just because of their beliefs and views.

as does everyone who isn't completely zombified.

If Mr. Cathy wants to be the most Christian Christian there ever was, that's all fine and dandy, but the moment he tries to effect/affect others in a negative way he has crossed the line.

then you must REALLY hate these people, right? a foundation bent on forcing religious symbols to be removed from everywhere? group of people who actually go around and file lawsuits in places they've never been to have things like Nativity Scenes removed. why? in your own words, pure malice to suppress those who believe differently.

His actions are no different than schoolyard bullying, just insetad of physically and emotitonally harming one child for a short period of tie, he's looking to emotionally harm an entire group of people permanently. How is that not reproachable?

If you say so.

Those who focus heavily on fighting homosexuality because it destroys the sanctity of marriage do so out of malice.
Those who focus heavily on fighting homosexuality because the Bible says so do so out of stupidity and malice.
Those who focus heavily on fighting homosexuality in the name of Christianity have been brainwashed by Satan into doing his bidding.

Listen up Everyone! Don't oppose what you don't believe in, it makes you evil!

[DoctorStrongbad]

Chick-Fil-A is a business and can do whatever they like. If they don't like gays, than who cares? People will still buy their food, because it is good and tasty.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/30/12 03:57 PM, Korriken wrote: shitty way of doing it. try again. Show how being against gay marriage is contradictory to the christian religion.

Pretty sure doing anthing out of pure disdain for a group is unchristian. Unless there is some part of the Bible that says it's A-OK to hate others just because they're different.

I would also like a reason to show that such a view actually fits within the Christian religion

you fail to show where the malice is coming from. has he ever kicked a gay person? has he ever thrown one out of any of his restaurants? has he ever fired one for being gay?

So he wants gays to not marry, why? Show me a reason that isn't a strawman based upon didain for he group and I'll concede the entire argument.

If it's anti gay? yes.

That wasn't a yes or no queston.

as does everyone who isn't completely zombified.

Then what are you even trying to say here?

then you must REALLY hate these people, right? a foundation bent on forcing religious symbols to be removed from everywhere? group of people who actually go around and file lawsuits in places they've never been to have things like Nativity Scenes removed. why? in your own words, pure malice to suppress those who believe differently.

Any group that goes around and seeks to have private individual barred from showing their religious affiliation (as atheists often do) is just as despicable. Seeking to have the government stopped from promoting a specific religion over another by showing these symbols is very different.

Listen up Everyone! Don't oppose what you don't believe in, it makes you evil!

Ha! I love this argument by the Right. It's hilarious. They actively and openly seek to strip or deny others of rights, and when someone criticizes them for it they claim that they're being called evil just because of their beliefs. I don't care if Mr. Cathy like homosexuals or not. He can loathe the shit out of them for all I care. His views are his and he has the right and freedom to hold and express them. However, the moment his beliefs go from mere belefs to an actual attempt to hinder or curtail the freedoms of another (without good cause) these beliefs become my business. Now, if anyone can give me a good cause reason for his views that aren't so full of logical holes it makes a sponge look soilid,I would admit defeat and be done here.

[Korriken]

At 7/30/12 11:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

So he wants gays to not marry, why? Show me a reason that isn't a strawman based upon didain for he group and I'll concede the entire argument.

I know this is an outright lie, but ok.

I'll answer this question with a question. do you support incest?

[Feoric]

At 7/31/12 07:30 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/30/12 11:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

So he wants gays to not marry, why? Show me a reason that isn't a strawman based upon didain for he group and I'll concede the entire argument.

I know this is an outright lie, but ok.

I'll answer this question with a question. do you support incest?

Incest is exactly like gay marriage, I was hoping nobody would make the comparison. Pack your bags, Camarohusky, Korriken has this one in the bag.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/31/12 07:30 PM, Korriken wrote: do you support incest?

Had a chance to make a good comparison and you give me this? Why not just shit on the floor and call it a mountain?

Incest is directly tied to an dramatic increase in birth defects.

If you wanted to make a better argument, you should have dropped down polygamy. In cases where polygamy is not a front for massive abuse (see Warren Jeffs) I have nothing against it. It is a personal thing and I have no business in it.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 7/27/12 01:31 PM, Light wrote:

At 7/27/12 01:23 PM, Korriken wrote:
Is the left really so intolerant of those who don't think the way they do that they would deny job creators from setting up shop, thus not boosting their economy, just to preserve their way of thinking? sad.

I hope you're not implying that the Right is not at least as intolerant.

Because that would just be foolish on many levels.

actually gay marriage is a more complicated issue than that. The people who don't want it are Christians and gay marriage is against their religion. To allow gay marriage generally means forcing them to provide accommodation for same sex marriages. Outlawing gay marriage on the other hand like they want mandates that gay marriage is now forbidden whether it is against your religion or not.

Basically, both popular sides of this argument are intolerant and against freedom of religion. Now as for these people who spoke out against it, they have every right to say what ever they want. stopping them from putting their chain up would be the government punishing people for using their right to free speech. Anyone who supports government regulated speech is 100% in the wrong.