Chick Fil-A franchises not welcome
 

Here's a beautiful example of liberal tolerance, open-mindedness, and inclusion...

For those who don't know...Chick Fil-A is a franchise of restaurants that serve chicken sandwiches. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A is apparently a devout Christian (that rotten bastard). He was asked recently what he thought of gay marriage, and he expressed the (if not majority, certainly close to majority) opinion that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Mind you, in the 30+ states where this has been voted on by the public, gay marriage has been rejected. It has never been approved by public ballot. Amazingly, gay marriage was voted down, even in Californis and Oregon. So, even though I am pro-gay marriage (my liberal side is showing recently), no one can say that those opposed to gay marriage are radical extremists.

Why does this matter? Because the mayor of Boston, the mayor of Chicago, and a Philadelphia alderman have all said that they will try to prevent Chick Fil-A franchises in their towns.

Got to love that liberal tolerance. The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, was Obama's chief of staff. This is an influential, prominent guy.

Chick Fil-A restaurants are franchises. The family that owns the franchise in Chicago has 97 employees. They would like to open another restaurant. Instead of being honored for creating jobs in a city where levels of gun violence makes the OK Corral look like the Vatican,they are being punished because their distant CEO had the audacity to state that he is a traditional Christian. Send him to the showers!

If customers want to boycott the restaurant, fine. But the government cannot refuse to allow lawful commerce, simply because they don't like the perfectly legal views of the CEO. It's unbelievable.

Furthermore, here's what I love. These same liberals are not calling for boycotts of Muslim-owned businesses, and the Islam view of marriage is, to put it mildly, less tolerant than the Christian view. But because Muslims have been anointed with "victim" status by liberals, their barbaric treatment of women is ignored. Instead, liberals claim that it's conservatives, not Muslims, who are waging a war on women. Tell me how that passes the common sense test.

And my side loses to these people, every single year.

No, he didn't say that "he" opposed same sex marriage, he said "the company" opposes same sex marriage.

Big difference.

-spence

Correct, that is what he said.

Now tell me how that is grounds for a city denying a license to a Chick Fil-A franchise? When did it become illegal for a company to donate to groups that advocate for traditional marriage? As far as I know, no one is saying that the company, or franchises, don't hire or serve people who disagree with their views. As far as I can tell, the whole thing came to a head because, as usual, liberals have zero tolerance for anyone who isn't as enlightened as they are. Again, if someone wants to boycott the restaurant because of their views, fine. But I don't see how the government can prohibit the restaurant from operating, because of the company's values. Even the ACLU, for God's sake, has said that these cities wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Blatant violatrion of the First Amendment. Spence, I would think that, as a progressive, you'd be concerned if the government was trampling someone's right to free speech? Or are you admitting that not everyone has that right?

I also see you dodged my connection to the fact that liberals, as a group, are quite concerned about the conservative war on women, but those same liberals apparently show no concern for the way Muslims treat their women. Any comment on that?

Spence, one last question, regarding gay marriage...

It is a fact that large majorities of blacks oppose gay marriage. It is also a fact that large majorities of Muslims oppose gay marriage. Yet when liberals are accusing someone of homophobia, it is ALWAYS white Christians. Why is that? Why are white Christians singled out for their opposition to gay marriage?

Answer...blacks and Muslims vote Democrat, so their bigotry is OK to liberals...

It's all one giant publicity stunt. The politicians look like heros, chick-filet gets dozens of hours of free publicity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only people who loose are the people who did amazing things durring this current news cycle who deserve to be on the news for their triumphs, but sadly, negativity trumps positivity to the tenth power when it comes to ratings and advertising money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't matter. Nothing stated violates Massachusetts' anti-discrimination laws. If they qualify for the permitting, then it would be reprehensible to not give it to them.

I'm not saying at all that I agree with the company's stance, but it's well within their right to have that opinion.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Evelyn Hall

I guess I'm wondering if Chick Fillet's owner(s) were gay or something and stated that he/his/her/bi/tri company had an issue with or opposed traditional marriage on some grounds...would it be ok for a mayor or city or town to deny them a business license on that basis?.....might not go over too well in the media and certain circles(for the mayors and towns to be sure)

really don't want to start a pro/con war here but always wondered how folks that have an issue with some Christian views on marriage as being a man/woman arangement(and I'm not sure that the view is always/mostly religeous based but it's just easier to assume that if someone thinks a certain way about this issue and some others it must be because their church told them to think that way)....but for those that see gay marriage/union as "the same essentially" and natural and for all intents and purposes equal to traditional him/her marriage but also and often think of themselves as "evolutionists" and "science based thinkers", how do you square those two?...just curious

I think a more obvious answer is that you don't see a lot of black people or Muslims out protesting gay marriage. It's usually white Christians.

-spence

I like that quote, see it used often and wonder how many that quote it would actually do it :)

I saw some this morning...thanks for clearing that up

Interesting point. The answer may just be that evolution and science is irrelevant to the conversation. What's relevant is the societal opinion vector...gay people have always been there but tolerance has varied. Certainly today the trend appears to be toward tolerance and equality rather than condemnation.

-spence

I don't believe I ever said the threat could withstand a legal challenge.

But the story certainly is bigger because he said it was the company rather than just his personal beliefs.

-spence

It's interesting when people say for instance that good Muslims should speak out more against bad Muslims, when the reality is that quite a lot do and at great risk. It's just not covered by the MSM for some reason...I thought they were all liberals?

One of my favorite gay liberal Muslims (ok, perhaps the only one I know of) is Irshad Manji who wrote an entire book about how Islamic treatment of women is the core problem with Islam in modern society.

There's a lot of it out there, you just have to look for it.

-spence

I guess it's all in how you define condemnation...no doubt that some look at it as being unacceptable but I think that many that see a clear distinction between traditional marriage and some union between other combinations( and it appears to be a majority just about everywhere) would like to trade that word tolerance (as in, you are willing to tolerate it.....perhaps grudgingly) for "acceptance" (meaning, you accept the fact that some individuals are going to be oriented this way and that they have a right to live their lives as they wish but that they also should/could accept the fact that their orientation and lifestyle is somewhat if not completely out of the norm and natural order of things from creation or when evolution began)...guess you'd have to give me your definition of "equality" as well

seems to be "conveniently" irrelevant in this discussion:)

societal opinion vectors ...that's a good one...be careful where you point those things:)

Eat more Kale

:devil2:

I'd suggest rethinking this line from a common sense perspective.

-spence

in the end, who are any of you to dictate how someone else chooses to live their life?? You call that freedom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:)
The first thing that will be affected by our nationwide drought
(in 2013)
will be the very fast growth rate of Chicken
and their pricing due to and an increase in cost for corn grain

There's only so much people will be willing to pay
for a chicken sandwich.... in the end.

I see. Spence, a few questions/comments...

First, do you have any data, any at all, to support your argument? I see black leaders on Foxnews all the time (that being the only network that bothers to mention that blacks are, as a group, opposed to gay marriage), denouncing gay marriage. Blacks and Hispanics were the reason why gay marriage was defeated in the California vote, and I never, not once, heard a liberal refer to blacks or Hispanics as bigoted.

Second, you're going to sit there with a straight face, and tell me that liberals aren't opposed to being anti-gay marriage, as long as one doesn't go to a public demonstration about the subject? Accordong to liberals, it's OK for one to vote against gay marriage, as long as you don't publicly protest? That's your idea of an "obvious answer"

Third, has the CEO of Chich Fil-A ever been seen at an anti gay marriage protest? If not, why is eh being called a bigot?

Fourth. If you are correct that what liberals oppose are public demonstrations (and of course you are not), why do liberals claim that conservatives are anti-woman, and are waging a "war on women"? Have you ever seen conservatives hold a public demonstration to publicly announce their opposition to women?

Fifth, have you been painting inside with the windows shut? Please remember to open the windows a crack, the fumes are getting to you...

OK, you say one Muslim wrote a book about the treatmwnt of women. That's not what I asked. I asked why liberals claim that conservatives are waging war on women,m but don't seem to be concerned about the waty Muslims treat women. You say there's liberal coverage of that issue. Whatever.

Being opposed to gay marriage is not saying that gays can't live the way they choose. They just don't want to call it "marriage".

A homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are not the same thing. There is a huge diference. One relationship can produce life, one cannot. Treating two different things as if they are different is not, by definition, discriminatiry.

That's the anti-gay-marriage view, and it has some validity to me. But in the end, I have no issue with gay marriage.

I don't think Eben read what I wrote, either that or it was just making a generalized statement which may or may not apply generally

I think you summed it up pretty well..........I'm not rabidly anti-gay marriage, probably more "evolving" on the issue like our president....and my feelings on the issue have little to do with my faith(as far as where they originate) but they do align to some extent....they are more to do with the fact that I've never seen anything to convinvince me that a+a or b+b = a+b.....my pause on the subject is that I simply don't or can't to this point, see the two as the same.....I do think it's obvious that many who feel this way have thown up their hands and said "just let them get married....I'm sick of hearing about it" helping along Spence's "public opinion vector" to some extent

I should note that due to the nature of my business I'm pretty confident that I've spent more time working and talking with gay singles and couples over the last 25 years that most of you combined...

I think there is both acceptance an accomodation that is possible without forever changing the most basic and fundamental arrangement from both evolutionary and creationist "common sense perspective"....

from experience...just as Spence pointed out that certain Christians are those out "protesting" the issue and others who might be like minded are silent or even fearful...I also think most homosexual folks are currently living their lives as they choose, enjoying freedom.... and probably don't like being defined by the more vocal activists and proponents

That's because you probably watch too much FOX News.

No, I'm saying the white conservative Christians get the most attention because they're the most visible and hence easiest target. Go Google anti-gay protest images and tell me how many black people or Muslims you see.

Because he said..."God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about."

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Now you're just making stuff up. As for the war on women, it's called a...

METAPHOR

I'd note that for someone who is obsessed with the suspected intolerance of others you label anyone who hold a differing opinion as having mental issues or being on drugs.

-spence

Good post. Bu tthi sissue that I posted about here is not about gay marriage. It's about whether or not Christians have the right to exist in the public square.

If Mitt Romney wants to be President, here's what he should say to Obama in a debate..."Mr President, your former chief of staff is telling Christians that they are not welcome to open businesses in Chicago. Is he correct?"

That puts Obama in a true no-win situation. No escape.

[QUOTE=spence;951041]bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race




hello Bigot :uhuh::)

Spence...only posted that because it's very easy to claim this just because others happen to disagree with your world view...we all seem intolerant to those that hold differing views...shouldn't be tossed about ....

Black pastors to protest NAACP support for gay marriage | WashingtonExaminer.com

Spence, before you say something that inane, try Googling it first. I saw all kinds of black protests of anti-gay marriage...

Muslim, and Pro-Gay Marriage | Change.org News

"Homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam..."

Spence, you have this habit, when backed into a corner from which there is no escape, of inventing theories that support your agenda, but which have zero basis in reality.

Instead of forming your opinion, and then inventing facts which support your opinion...how about getting the facts first, then formulating your opinion, based on the actual (not made-up) facts? I think you'll find that approach puts you in a better position to defend what you preach...

huh??:confused:

"That's because you probably watch too much FOX News."

If you say that blacks don't protest gay marriage, I'd suggest you don't watch enough FoxNews.

"Go Google anti-gay protest images and tell me how many black people or Muslims you see."

I did that for you. and I don't recall any liberals saying that the 1300 black ministers who protested gay marriage, were bigots.

"Now you're just making stuff up. As for the war on women, it's called a metaphor"

OK. First, you say I'm makibg up the fact that liberals claim there is a conservative war on women. Then you say the liberal claim of the conservative war on women is ametaphor. Spence, either the liberal claims of a war on women doesn't exist, or it's a metaphor. It cannot be both.

"you label anyone who hold a differing opinion as having mental issues "

Wrong. I don't label "anyone" with differing opinions as mentally unglued. I only refer to people thusly who believe things that are demonstrably false, or who are guilty of spectacular hypocrisy. Anyone who claims to be "tolerant", yet who supports Rahn Emanuel's claim that Christians can't open a business if they voice their beliefs, is an unbelievable hypocrit. You displayed your lunacy when you claimed that liberals ignore black "intolerance" because blacks don't show their intolerance in public. Every person here knows why liberals won't call blacks out on this, because they need black votes. In other words, it's OK to be opposed to gay marriage if you have been anointed with "victim" status by liberals.

The mayors of Chicago and Boston are telling the CEO of Chick fil-A, that he cannot open a legal business in those cities. The sole reason is that he voiced his Christian beliefs.

How's that for freedom of religion and that famous liberal tolerance?

just read this and wondring if this falls under some folks definition of "bigot"


Mayor Rahm Emanuel “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” he said. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

That last statement implies that Emanuel believes it is politicians, not markets, who should determine what is and isn’t a good investment. And that is bad news not just for fans of waffle fries; it bodes poorly for any Windy City business that chooses to support unpopular or controversial causes.

Boston’s mayor, Thomas Menino, has been even more explicit; it looks as if the entire city will probably miss out on the chance to boycott “Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is,” as he put it. The Atlanta-based chain doesn’t have any restaurants in Beantown yet, but it has been considering opening one near the Freedom Trail. That won’t be an easy task. “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” Menino told the Boston Herald.

sounds very "intolerant":)

When Michele Bachman put her foot in her mouth last week, many influential republicans condemned what she said. I don't see Democrats telling these mayors to remmeber that we have a Constitution, in which the freedom of speech is explicitly stated...

I hope the mayors stick to their guns, and I hope they get sued for a billion dollars.

That famous liberal tolerance, enlightenment, and concern for free speech. Unfreakinbelievable.

Imagine for a second, if a conservative mayor said Muslims can't open businesses in that city, because of their Islamic beliefs. Liberals would go berserk, and they'd be right to do so.

By that, I guess he means Chick fil-A doesn't believe in political corruption, playing the race card, and gang-banging gun violence?

keep in mind that the Progressives seek to turn our traditional ideas of Liberty and Justice on their head....

the Liberties guaranteed at our founding are termed "negative" because they are incomplete and the new "positive" Liberties need to reflect the values of the "real world" where absolutes are inadequate or outdated to deal with modern issues.....some win and some lose with government being the referee

the same can be said for Justice...simple Justice is not enough..the world is too complex...we need Social Justice and Economic Justice and Food Justice and others which are doled out by the Philosopher Kings whose Justice is not "Blind" but "Benevolent" and in the business of guanteeing outcomes(or claiming to) rather than protecting opportunty

It's not Justice at all in fact, but it allows them to pick and choose, based on some claim of fairness and equity to either grant or deny favor, based on their view of the world as it should be.....

so for the Progressive generally...this is perfectly acceptable:)

I think everyone here is missing the real point of the matter here. The people of Boston are the true victims here- they're missing out on delicious Chick-fil-a Chicken Strips. Noms mejor.

Ps. I rarely post in here. More of an occasional fly on the wall. The AR thread piqued my interest. But if that is the correct definition of bigot, then most of the posters here are bigots. No offense meant. But the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are loosely thrown around and most often used with negative connotations (not to mentioned gross stereotypes), and it irks me.

I'm a democrat, although maybe more conservative than most. But I wholly agree that its hypocritical to disallow a franchise from opening up here in Boston because of their intolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very solid post. Except I'd replace "because of their intolerance" with "because of their religion".

Liberals seem to be highly, highly selective of their opposition to intolerance. Liberals don't complain when blacks show their "intolerance" toward homosexuals, and they sure don't complain about Muslim "intolerance" toward homosexuality, women, or Jews.

But liberals love to point out "intolerance" among white, male Christians. That's hypocrisy at best, anti-Christian bigotry at worst.

I'd agree and note that it just doesn't make for a very realistic debate. There are really very few people who are real liberals, and perhaps a dozen or so different types of conservatives some of which are at times quite liberal.

I'm not sure it's hypocritical but it's probably not legal and bad policy.

By the way, if you voted for Clinton or Obama you're a pink panty wearing commie, I'll bet you smoke dope, hate the free market (or at least you don't have a clue how it works) and believe hard work never helped anyone.

Seriously, I wouldn't share a fox hole with you :devil2:

-spence

Hey Jim, did you see this?

After President Obama’s announcement, opposition to gay marriage hits record low - The Washington Post

It's interesting to read remarks by black pastors in the US who oppose gay marriage.

Doesn't sound like a bigot as much as someone who respectfully disagrees.

Who's wearing the "God Hates Fags" shirts?

Who's blamed 9/11 and natural disasters on gays?

-spence

"Opposition to gay marriage hits record low after Obama's announcement"...

I guess that explains why gay marriage has been approved in so many public referendums? Oh wait...Obama won NC in 2008 by a large margin. Very recently, the citizens of NC, the same folks who voted for Obama, overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage.

Spence, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, so no need to preach to the choir. All I said was, it's interesting that you apply your outrage over homophobia, very selectively...namely, only to whites. You have done nothing, nothing, to explain this (no need, we all know the reason).

"It's interesting to read remarks by black pastors in the US who oppose gay marriage."

Interesting. You said pastor"s", menaing plural. Yet you cite one. One.

So when blacks oppose gay marriage, they "respectfully disagree". But no bigotry. Do I have that right?

"Who's wearing the "God Hates Fags" shirts? Who's blamed 9/11 and natural disasters on gays?"

No one who is truly a Catholic or a Christian. No one who is to be taken seriously. Has the CEO of Chick Fil-A worn such a shirt?

Spence, allow me to re-cap this most inane, insipid of posts...when blacks oppose gay marriage, they are not hatemongers, but rather, they are folks who "respectfully disagree". When white Christians oppose gay marriage, according to you, they can all be grouped into the category of folks who wear "God Hates Fags" tshirts?

Spence, the folloing question destroys your argument. John McCain is vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Spence, you're telling me that John McCain (the guy who adopted an orphaned girl from Bangladesh) is no better, morally, than someone who wears a tshirt that says "God hates fags"?

GOOD LUCK ANSWERING THAT QUESTION. It blows away your idiotic theory, and it traps you in a corner with no escape. None. Of course, that won't stop you from repeating this nonsense tomorrow. Sorry to interrupt a real hum-dinger of a liberal rant with common sense and facts.

Spence, what you did is the ultimate cowardly, intellectually dishonest, cheap shot. You know that you cannot explan rationally why liberals are OK with blacks opposing gay marriage, but liberals can't tolerate whites who oppose gay marriage. So rather than admit the obvious truth that there is hypocrisy at play here, you try to claim that blacks who oppose gay marriage are OK because they still support Obama, or because they don't really hate homosexuals. But whites who oppose gay marriage are all, ALL OF THEM, equivalent to the folks who wear "God hates fags" tshirts.

Spence, if you had any intellectual honesty, and in truth you probably didn't, you just flushed it down the toilet. You're a poster boy for all that is contemptuous of liberalism...you are the closed-minded bigot who knows that he cannot engage those who disagree with you in an honest conversation. Rather than do the civilized thing and admit I have a point, you claim we're all a bunch of loathsome hatemongers.

You are an intellectual liar and coward. For God's sake, this is an issue upon which we agree, and yet you had to play the bigot card as soon as I started asking some fair and probing questions.

Spence, what does it say about your beliefs, that you cannot begin to defend them honestly, when subjected to such innocent scrutiny? All you can do, all you ever do, is eventually accuse those who disagree with you of hate and bigotry. That's the ultimate intellectual surrender from the jerks on your side of the aisle.

When I ask a fair question from now on, why don't you just not respond, rather than make such a horse's ass out of yourself?

What I see is mayors looking to make a name for themselves in a big election year. Why is Menino speaking for me in this matter? I certainly don't think he should be speaking..PERIOD when he can be so hard to understand.
(No, I'm not stressing is speach inpediment but rather his disregard for common sense!) He is so willing to condemn a busness for what is a MORAL opinion of "what constitutes marriage", yet I don't recall his sticking his nose out condemning a Hooters franchise opening near the Boston Garden? Was his "moral compass" not working then?

When you have political buffoons sticking their noses into subjects that they have no reason to, you get exactly what we have here.

Why are these mayors speaking for the public when they haven't asked the public's opinion?

I may be naive, but when stories like this are big news it just makes me think "Someone is trying to be a publicity whore" and it looks like the political boobs are it!