Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston page 5

Not stance of someone who is for “traditional” marriage but someone who is against marriage of others.

Again, he is not being bigoted or homophobic in the context. What he is saying is not that “gays don’t really love each other or should have rights”, but that he thinks that marriage is a holy union that is not defined just by love but also to do with the examples of Jesus Christ and the Bible. He defines religion by his own religious texts, and only by those texts does he rule gays out. We don’t know whether he references the Bible to justify his beliefs, or whether he is bound to the terms of his religion, so it makes more sense not to make assumptions. I don’t support his values but I still wouldn’t go as far as to call him bigoted.

A fast food restaurant targeting family people with specific religious conservative ideals.

That is not the exclusive target, nor is it the only group that is standing up for Chick Fil A. They do more to appeal to that group however they do not exist to serve only that group. Just like how the Whole Food’s owner is also very conservative, and yet gets plenty of business from liberals and centrists too. Chick Fil A also stands on more than it’s values as, from what I’ve experienced, Chick Fil A is better quality than its competitors. Furthermore, even if it was selectively targeting certain consumers that agreed with them then their customer base would have already been pretty small, thus when using the logic “the targeted customer population is too small”, arguing that therefore an increase in demand is unlikely is non-sequitur.

The communities have the expressed rights to decide such voluntary decisions based on their own biased and subjective impression of the People planing to build the store/building.

If the community actually owns the land and has a clear policy in regards to it then yes, they can. As it was, Chick Fil A is a private enterprise and owned the restaurants and the area for themselves, meaning that a public removal of their restaurant is nonsensical as they were not in violation of any law. If you can show thatthe cities of Boston and Chicago had policies which regulated what kinds of beliefs could be expressed by a CEO with business in their cities then fine, that’s on Chick Fil A then, as it stands however it seems like this was just an abuse of mayoral power probably used by those politicians to get them extra support from a targeted voter base for any upcoming elections. If that regulation exist I would still contest its constitutionality and usefulness, but I have not seen any specifically written law which justifies these actions.

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Do YOU have some kind of OBJECTIVE “proof” of this? Then show it,,,,discuss it,,, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

Just commenting that I’ve heard this mentioned in articles online and in news broadcasts on various stations. Don’t have the time right now to link them, sorry.

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Do YOU have some kind of OBJECTIVE “proof” of this? Then show it,,,,discuss it,,, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

Just commenting that I’ve heard this mentioned in articles online and in news broadcasts on various stations. Don’t have the time right now to link them, sorry.

It’s called National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-Fil-A, and it’s on many different sites:

http://www.facebook.com/events/444598242237116/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57480716/chicago-chick-fil-a-protesters-plan-kiss-in/

I really don’t get what the big deal with how the owners of a restaurant chain feel is. As they said themselves, "…it will “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

This is being blown so far out of proportion it’s almost becoming culturally iconic or something. Politicians, political groups, and everything are either eating there or refusing to eat there to try to send some sort of message. It wouldn’t influence whether I ate there one way or the other.

But, these mayors were looking to make a political statement and, by doing so, are repressing Cathy’s speech in a way that is unconstitutional.

I still think they’re trying to control the firm’s speech (the source isn’t too detailed, but that’s what I think), and I’m still not entirely convinced that freedom of speech applies to firms (AKA: allowing the director to use his powerful firm to convey his own thoughts in a way most people aren’t capable of). In no way are they shutting down the person. They’re shutting down his ability to have more freedom of speech than the average person. Which, in all honesty, is a fairly noble start. Not sure if they can get the legal support, but I’m personally against the idea that some people are allowed to voice their opinions more than others.

Again, comparing to gay marriage to either voting or in this case life, is a bit out there.

It’s avoiding the comment, but I suppose your answer is implied any way. It’s legally okay to have people killed in a country where you don’t have the right to live as much as I suppose I’ll find out it’s legally okay for a director to use his undercover fast-food firm to really just donate to anti-homosexual organisations and express his bigoted beliefs in a stronger way than most people are capable of. Whether we are personally against it is of no legal use. Again, I don’t think it’s unfair for me to state there are very little rational arguments for allowing a majority to vote for whether or not a minority they dislike gets a right the majority already has and the majority doesn’t want the minority to get. And I don’t think it’s unfair for me to state that firms should not be allowed to be used to convey your personal message, unless they were legally set up for something similar (for example, I really like fries, so my support for eating fries is conveyed by setting up a fries stand). This firm in no way is set up to battle homosexuals from getting equal rights, so in no way should it be used to convey that message.

That is, of course, my personal stance. Again, it would be consistent if it was legal and the mayors were reprimanded for being so ridiculous to think they could try to stop directors from abusing the law to get their firm to state their anti-equal rights beliefs. Many things can be legally consistent, and that certainly is one side of the story. I would find it consistent to argue that the mayors should not stop the firm from setting up if everything that happened was legal. I would disagree and argue the laws should change, but that does not stop the current laws. However, I’d still argue some laws are less rational than others, and it would be silly to think some of them are okay to keep up.

I guess I’ll point this out again, since it is an implied question I’m seeing.

The city government is doing something they are legally allowed to do. Their mentioned reasons (that Chick-Fil-A are bigoted) are not really valid, but they still have other valid reasons to deny them the permit needed to expand their business there. From the OP’s first link:

(Moreno) said he was not worried about being sued. First, he said, there are well-documented traffic and congestion issues in the Logan Square neighborhood that he could raise to justify his decision.

This implies Chick-Fil-A has the right to sue the city in response to a denied permit, meaning that the city has to have a legally justifiable position.

So basically, the city has the right to deny the permit, and the company has the right to sue the city for denying them one.

I still think they’re trying to control the firm’s speech (the source isn’t too detailed, but that’s what I think), and I’m still not entirely convinced that freedom of speech applies to firms (AKA: allowing the director to use his powerful firm to convey his own thoughts in a way most people aren’t capable of).

Riddle me this: would you be equally fine with a conservative mayor telling Ben and Jerry’s (very vocal supporters of gay marriage) that they are not allowed to open up a business in that city because they don’t share the values of said city? I personally would not but I would hope you would, to be consistent.

They’re shutting down his ability to have more freedom of speech than the average person.

So does Presidents Clinton and Bush – should they no longer be allowed to speak?

It’s legally okay to have people killed in a country where you don’t have the right to live as much as I suppose I’ll find out it’s legally okay for a director to use his undercover fast-food firm to really just donate to anti-homosexual organisations and express his bigoted beliefs in a stronger way than most people are capable of.

Seeing as the right to life is a pretty universal right, it’s hard to apply this example, but I would say that if a nation, within its borders, wanted to do this and they weren’t subject to outside sanctions, then yes it would be fine to do so legally.

Again, I don’t think it’s unfair for me to state there are very little rational arguments for allowing a majority to vote for whether or not a minority they dislike gets a right the majority already has and the majority doesn’t want the minority to get.

Except that marriage isn’t a right in my opinion so they aren’t voting on said right.

And I don’t think it’s unfair for me to state that firms should not be allowed to be used to convey your personal message, unless they were legally set up for something similar (for example, I really like fries, so my support for eating fries is conveyed by setting up a fries stand). This firm in no way is set up to battle homosexuals from getting equal rights, so in no way should it be used to convey that message.

Two things:

First, it isn’t unfair to question the rights of corporations in the political realm. In fact, it’s a pretty fundamental argument about how much power corporations should and should not have. But, to prevent a business from opening up in a city with some of the highest unemployment in the country (Chicago) simply because the mayor disagrees with his political stance (Something the President agreed with up until four months ago I might add, the President that the Mayor of Chicago was Chief of Staff for) is goes against everything the first amendment was founded on.

Second, would you be equally supportive of a conservative mayor banning Ben and Jerry from opening up an ice cream stand in their city? B and J are vocal supporters of gay marriage and that view may not coincide with the values of said city? I’m curious if you only support this ban because Chick Fil A’s founder is a homophobic bigot or if you really believe that municipalities have this power.

I really think the point made by some about Rahm Emanuel’s hypocrisy is quite telling. He had no problem with Obama being president in 2010 when Obama was against gay marriage. Anyway, this sums it up nicely.

Karma, I laughed so hard at your 1/2 page post on page 4 about how terrible I am. I must admit, you are fun sometimes.It tickled me. Have you been watching the news about the OP? You should, it is interesting to watch and I must agree with Twilight that this is blown way out of proportion. Of course a lot of the threads we argue are bloated.

Originally posted by Ketsy:

I guess I’ll point this out again, since it is an implied question I’m seeing.

The city government is doing something they are legally allowed to do. Their mentioned reasons (that Chick-Fil-A are bigoted) are not really valid, but they still have other valid reasons to deny them the permit needed to expand their business there. From the OP’s first link:

(Moreno) said he was not worried about being sued. First, he said, there are well-documented traffic and congestion issues in the Logan Square neighborhood that he could raise to justify his decision.

This implies Chick-Fil-A has the right to sue the city in response to a denied permit, meaning that the city has to have a legally justifiable position.

So basically, the city has the right to deny the permit, and the company has the right to sue the city for denying them one.

I’m glad someone FINALLY brought this up.

I sure hate the way “the media” likes to present ONLY the salacious data (at least in BIG PRINT…..who reads the fine print…lol). The media HYPED the whole “Gay-thing” because it SELLS.

A govt. entity has a whooooole lot of power to “protect” that which is “theirs”. A city has a lot of “red tape” that can be “easily cut” or it can completely bind something to the point of being ineffective. Believe me….I have “done business” w/ the City of Wichita.

This is from a Rodney Dangerfield movie: Back to School. It’s about a BUSINESSMAN who goes back to college so he can keep his son there. The video pits Rodney’s business acumen against the idealism of “ivory tower”. BUT, I think ya’ll get the picture of what I’m talking about as far as a “mayor” making it near impossible for a company to locate in his/er city.

We had a very similar situation w/ Walmart wanting to put in a store in a neighborhood that wasn’t a “good fit” for such a business. Our city counsel rejected this HUUUUGE business permission to build

It doesn’t really matter IF the “reasoning” of the counsel (or any other govt. entity) is “valid”…..er, LEGALLY valid. Like Ketsy says: they can always SUE if they want to locate in that city badly enough. BUT, the PR ramifications and the monetary costs AND THE TIME suing which can result usually just “ends the deal” and the company moves on to greener ($$$$$) pastures. After all, a business is IN business to make MONEY…..not be a champion for “rights” (even though Chick-fil-a donates to anti-Gay orgs.) and make ridiculous “stands”. Business IS business.

The question here for the “conservatives” is: Just because a very visible showing of support came out yesterday…..do ya think a very opposite, yet near “invisible”, negative effect for the company can’t//won’t happen? Yesterday was JUST ONE DAY. The future is a looooong time.

There is currently a “battle” waging for Gay Rights. It’s a very volitile one….one that can have serious “fallout”. It’s very possible Cathy’s big mouth has put his company right in the middle of it and he could suffer some real “collateral damage” from it,,,,,if not complete “death”.

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Do YOU have some kind of OBJECTIVE “proof” of this? Then show it,,,,discuss it,,, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

Just commenting that I’ve heard this mentioned in articles online and in news broadcasts on various stations. Don’t have the time right now to link them, sorry.

no….no….no….nooooooooo, Bob. I wasn’t talking to YOU,,,,even tho I used YOUR quote. It was in response to Jake-0’s use of yer quote.

He said of it: “Yeah, this is really going to make them popular with the public.”
THAT is what I was responding to.
Sorry that I so poorly formated it all…..I got “lazy”, lol

BTW…. I do know about the “Kiss in”.
I’ll be there tomorrow w/ Robbie to make our “statement”.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I’m glad someone FINALLY brought this up.

I sure hate the way “the media” likes to present ONLY the salacious data (at least in BIG PRINT…..who reads the fine print…lol). The media HYPED the whole “Gay-thing” because it SELLS.

A govt. entity has a whooooole lot of power to “protect” that which is “theirs”. A city has a lot of “red tape” that can be “easily cut” or it can completely bind something to the point of being ineffective. Believe me….I have “done business” w/ the City of Wichita.

This is from a Rodney Dangerfield movie: Back to School. It’s about a BUSINESSMAN who goes back to college so he can keep his son there. The video pits Rodney’s business acumen against the idealism of “ivory tower”. BUT, I think ya’ll get the picture of what I’m talking about as far as a “mayor” making it near impossible for a company to locate in his/er city.

We had a very similar situation w/ Walmart wanting to put in a store in a neighborhood that wasn’t a “good fit” for such a business. Our city counsel rejected this HUUUUGE business permission to build

It doesn’t really matter IF the “reasoning” of the counsel (or any other govt. entity) is “valid”…..er, LEGALLY valid. Like Ketsy says: they can always SUE if they want to locate in that city badly enough. BUT, the PR ramifications and the monetary costs AND THE TIME suing which can result usually just “ends the deal” and the company moves on to greener ($$$$$) pastures. After all, a business is IN business to make MONEY…..not be a champion for “rights” (even though Chick-fil-a donates to anti-Gay orgs.) and make ridiculous “stands”. Business IS business.

The question here for the “conservatives” is: Just because a very visible showing of support came out yesterday…..do ya think a very opposite, yet near “invisible”, negative effect for the company can’t//won’t happen? Yesterday was JUST ONE DAY. The future is a looooong time.

There is currently a “battle” waging for Gay Rights. It’s a very volitile one….one that can have serious “fallout”. It’s very possible Cathy’s big mouth has put his company right in the middle of it and he could suffer some real “collateral damage” from it,,,,,if not complete “death”.

Nice post Karma, I have to agree with you old fella. As to the kiss-in tomorrow, I am not sure of the turn out. It will be interesting to see what happens I don’t think one mans opinion will put CF out of business. He may suffer a bit of “collateral damage”, but I don’t think the company itself will. Many questions come up, such as will there be protests to the gay kiss-in or will it be ignored. I personally don’t think the turn out will be near as big since the gay community is only a small percentage of our society.

Uhmmm, Karma…it doesn’t count if you take your wife and kiss her. You are missing the point of the kiss-in. :)

The “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-Fil-A” makes me sad.

The closest Chick-Fil-A is 250 miles away. How am I supposed to enjoy the event now?

---

The media HYPED the whole “Gay-thing” because it SELLS.

To be fair, the Alderman and the Mayor both stated more or less that the “homophobic attitude” of Chick-Fil-A is the reason they’re blocking it. I was just also stating the implications of the quote, and that Chick-Fil-A probably wouldn’t win a law suit because there are other legitimate reasons for them to deny the request.

what the feck is Chick-A-Fila? I’m from Australia and very confused.

Originally posted by Murder_Machine:

what the feck is Chick-A-Fila? I’m from Australia and very confused.

I lol’d so hard.

Chick-fila is a stupid restaurant that sells chicken.Very greasy chicken,very unhealthy but yet delicious chicken,Chicken is what makes Americans.I love chicken.

It’s an American fast food place. Think McDonald’s, or something like that. Chick-Fil-A sells mostly chicken instead of burgers and fries, though.

Edit: I’m not sure how fast food is in Australia, but in the US it’s mostly greasy crap. Not really relevant, but I figured I’d point it out.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

I really don’t get what the big deal with how the owners of a restaurant chain feel is.

Ya don’t….eh? Well,,,,THAT indeed surprises me.

As they said themselves, "…it will “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

I well know what “government” is,,,,but, I don’t know what YOU mean by “political arena”. My guess is that it involves “political ACTIVITY”….as in PAC’s…..as in an area//group that has as its main agenda is to influence govt. and possibly public opinion. It is the PUBLIC OPINION part that ya left out that I think the real “policy debate” lies.

This is being blown so far out of proportion it’s almost becoming culturally iconic or something.

“…being blown out of proportion…”,,,, “….iconic or something…” ,,,,do tell….eh? Definition of iconic :very famous or popular, especially being considered to represent particular opinions or a particular time. Where have YOU been the last 20 years? Homosexuality has been “culturally iconic” at least that long…..AND, an “issue” much for much longer.

Politicians, political groups, and everything are either eating there or refusing to eat there to try to send some sort of message.

AND…just what is bad about THAT? Hasn’t there already been much discussion on this thread about the “message-of-free-speech”??? If Cathy—whose company made 4.1 BILLION last year can make his “message” known……I think it is my right, my duty, my blessing to make mine also,,,,even if it be “one tiny voice”.

It wouldn’t influence whether I ate there one way or the other.

Well,,,,,,once again, THAT is just sad to hear. I thought much better of YOU than that. How fucking hard can it be to give up eating a shitty sandwich in order to have ones behavior be,, in the very simplest of ways,, to coincide w/ their ideology on something as vital as Gay Rights? It’s not like there aren’t other places to eat. Hell, I hear that eating at home ain’t all that bad,,,,,nor that hard to do. Fucking lazy Americans that want everything done FOR them….and done Fast & Cheap.

Originally posted by Ketsy:

The media HYPED the whole “Gay-thing” because it SELLS.

To be fair, the Alderman and the Mayor both stated more or less that the “homophobic attitude” of Chick-Fil-A is the reason they’re blocking it. I was just also stating the implications of the quote, and that Chick-Fil-A probably wouldn’t win a law suit because there are other legitimate reasons for them to deny the request.

Point taken & understood.
Yet, MY point is that—in addition to— and ESPECIALLY politicians are “slaves” to the Gods of Hype,,,,,and have an unholy aliance w/ the media.

I’d like to have a much more indepth discussion//knowledge of those men’s feelings and intentions on what//why they have done this. A 60 Minutes interview would be a start. It would also do a lot towards resolving this very volitile issue in our country at this time…..a time when we have a whooooole lot of other “burning issues” that need our attention rather than this shit.

AND, your statement about not winning a law suit was fully backed by me.
Which brings me to: It’s very easy for a politician to “make promises” that he knows are already “in the bag”. It’s not all that “unpopular” today for a politican to “play to” the Gay vote.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Do YOU have some kind of OBJECTIVE “proof” of this? Then show it,,,,discuss it,,, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

Just commenting that I’ve heard this mentioned in articles online and in news broadcasts on various stations. Don’t have the time right now to link them, sorry.

no….no….no….nooooooooo, Bob. I wasn’t talking to YOU,,,,even tho I used YOUR quote. It was in response to Jake-0’s use of yer quote.

He said of it: “Yeah, this is really going to make them popular with the public.”
THAT is what I was responding to.
Sorry that I so poorly formated it all…..I got “lazy”, lol

BTW…. I do know about the “Kiss in”.
I’ll be there tomorrow w/ Robbie to make our “statement”.

Hee hee, I thought you had gone a little off your rocker – getting angry about that, saying you had never talked about girl’s locker rooms when you clearly had a few threads down, etc. That makes a little bit more sense I guess. I myself have a question about the Kiss-In. Will the kissing couples be buying chicken, or will they simply be there to make out? If they just come to kiss, will Chick-fil-a owners kick them out of the stores, or will they put up with it?

---

By the way, nutrition for the classic chick-fil-a sandwich, not too bad really, except for a ton of sodium:

440 Calories
16g Fat
2g Fiber
6g Sugars
30g Protein
3.5g Saturated Fat
0g Trans Fat
60mg Cholesterol
1400mg Sodium
42g Carbohydrates
15% Iron
15% Calcium
2% Vitamin A
2% Vitamin C

---

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by Ketsy:
<

The media HYPED the whole “Gay-thing” because it SELLS.

To be fair, the Alderman and the Mayor both stated more or less that the “homophobic attitude” of Chick-Fil-A is the reason they’re blocking it. I was just also stating the implications of the quote, and that Chick-Fil-A probably wouldn’t win a law suit because there are other legitimate reasons for them to deny the request.

Point taken & understood.
Yet, MY point is that ESPECIALLY politicians are “slaves” to the Gods of Hype,,,,,and have an unholy aliance w/ the media.

I’d like to have a much more indepth discussion//knowledge of those men’s feelings and intentions on what//why they have done this.

AND, your statement about not winning a law suit was fully backed by me.
Which brings me to: It’s very easy for a politician to “make promises” that he knows are already “in the bag”. It’s not all that “unpopular” today for a politican to “play to” the Gay vote.

That’s an interesting point. I think we all agree that Rahm Emanuel is probably one of the biggest vote players of them all. But these other two men (the alderman and the mayor) it would be interesting to know what their motivation was.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Do YOU have some kind of OBJECTIVE “proof” of this? Then show it,,,,discuss it,,, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

Just commenting that I’ve heard this mentioned in articles online and in news broadcasts on various stations. Don’t have the time right now to link them, sorry.

no….no….no….nooooooooo, Bob. I wasn’t talking to YOU,,,,even tho I used YOUR quote. It was in response to Jake-0’s use of yer quote.

He said of it: “Yeah, this is really going to make them popular with the public.”
THAT is what I was responding to.
Sorry that I so poorly formated it all…..I got “lazy”, lol

BTW…. I do know about the “Kiss in”.
I’ll be there tomorrow w/ Robbie to make our “statement”.

Man, you sure are getting senile. I don’t believe I made that original post. You really need to read the posts and quit just using me for your bouncing board.

Chick-fil-A set a one-day sales record on Wednesday…will this controversy help or hinder them…has it reached it’s peak?

Good question. They have probably introduced a lot of new customers to their products. Only time will tell.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Chick-fil-A set a one-day sales record on Wednesday…will this controversy help or hinder them…has it reached it’s peak?

Originally posted by Ketsy:

What I think is funny, it the instant windfall profit this restaurant has made.

I haven’t been able to find anything on this that shows a before and after change from their view. While they did have an unofficial “Support Chick-Fil-A day,” they have also earned a lot of protests.

They’re also privately owned, so I can’t check stock market figures or anything, and I doubt I’ll find sales records.

…

Both sides are protesting, and there’s no clear indication that the “traditional marriage” side is bigger. I honestly imagine they’re smaller, since it’s a lot easier to stop buying from somewhere than it is to start buying somewhere.

Question has already been answered, basically.

Edit: Do you remember the Rainbow Oreo from Nestle? As far as I can tell, their stocks appear mostly unaffected by their support for Gay Pride. If anything, their stocks are up. I won’t claim that with any certainty, though, since I don’t have the training or experience to find if that statement is accurate.

Second Edit: Wait, Oreo is from Kraft. Their stock took a huge dive… of one dollar, for about four days. Then it went back to normal.

Originally posted by Ketsy:

It’s an American fast food place. Think McDonald’s, or something like that. Chick-Fil-A sells mostly chicken instead of burgers and fries, though.

Edit: I’m not sure how fast food is in Australia, but in the US it’s mostly greasy crap. Not really relevant, but I figured I’d point it out.

fast food here isn’t much better, but I only go to Dominos and Red Rooster.

i bet they’re just laughing their way to the bank with all the controversy everywhere else.

Riddle me this: would you be equally fine with a conservative mayor telling Ben and Jerry’s (very vocal supporters of gay marriage) that they are not allowed to open up a business in that city because they don’t share the values of said city? I personally would not but I would hope you would, to be consistent.

If that firm is explicitly using its firm (and not only as directors) to spread their beliefs, then they should indeed be asked to keep that to their personal lives, as much as no director should be allowed to spread their anti-homosexual beliefs via firms that weren’t set up for it. However, they’re not going to be using this type of reasoning any way, as Ketsy said.

So does Presidents Clinton and Bush – should they no longer be allowed to speak?

I very much covered this. The president is being voted for due to his personal beliefs. People are voting for the candidate most likely to cover their own personal beliefs. Without sharing his own beliefs, he’s not going to get voted for (as nobody would know anything about him). A random fast-food restaurant is not set up to spread a dislike for homosexual marriage. Vast difference.

Except that marriage isn’t a right in my opinion so they aren’t voting on said right.

That’s semantics, though, and doesn’t really address the point. So, yeah, I had to call it a privilege, but it doesn’t change the argument. Making the right to life a privilege (yes, I’m deeply sorry for continuously using it, but you’re taking this far too lightly to use lighter eexamples) would allow the government to deny it to a certain minority and then allow a majority to vote whether or not a minority they dislike gets a privilege the majority already has. It’s a very similar case. It’s circular reasoning. A minority should not have to depend on a bigoted majority on receiving a privilege said bigoted majority already has said bigoted majority doesn’t want the minority to have. That’s ridiculous.

But, to prevent a business from opening up in a city with some of the highest unemployment in the country (Chicago) simply because the mayor disagrees with his political stance (Something the President agreed with up until four months ago I might add, the President that the Mayor of Chicago was Chief of Staff for) is goes against everything the first amendment was founded on.

Legally, he’s not going to use this step, so no point arguing over that. And personally, it is still unclear to me whether firms are covered under the first amendment. Again, there’s no silencing the person. There’s silencing the firm. If it doesn’t have the right, then there’s nothing wrong. Especially since he’s not going to use such legal justification any way (but might have the justification if it’s legal).

Second, would you be equally supportive of a conservative mayor banning Ben and Jerry from opening up an ice cream stand in their city? B and J are vocal supporters of gay marriage and that view may not coincide with the values of said city? I’m curious if you only support this ban because Chick Fil A’s founder is a homophobic bigot or if you really believe that municipalities have this power.

There’s two steps in this issue, which I believed I mentioned before:

1. Legal. A government official is consistent if it acts within the current legal area. If it’s legal to cut down a tree, then mowing down the forest is a consistent, legal act. If it’s legal to abort a fetus, then setting up an abortion clinic right in front of a church is a consistent, legal act. If it’s legal to ban a certain firm from setting up shop when that mayor disagrees with the director using his firm to spread beliefs about homosexuality (without using that as justification), then it’s consistent to do as such.
2. Personal. I’m personally against homophobia, and for equality. A person expressing his belief that homosexuals are demon spawn is not equal to a person expressing his belief that homosexuals are fine. This has nothing to do with legality. The former is just a dick while the latter is not being a dick to anyone. You’re arguing in favour of inequality if you believe there should be no homosexual marriages. You’re arguing in favour of equality if you believe the opposite. There can be countries in which it is normal people aren’t equal, but I’d argue it’s more objective if people are more equal than if they are explicitly made more unequal.