Bigoted Organization "Chic-Fil-A" infiltrates facebook

[notyou2]

Gee Phatty, when the restaurant chain discriminates you are in 100% agreement, but as soon as some city politicians fire back and form their own discriminatory practices you scream discrimination. Just another example of your duplicity.

[patches70]

Gee Phatty, when the restaurant chain discriminates you are in 100% agreement, but as soon as some city politicians fire back and form their own discriminatory practices you scream discrimination. Just another example of your duplicity.

Whoa whoa, I'm assuming you have some sort of proof that Chic Fil A discriminates against people? What do they do? Refuse to hire? Fire homosexual employees if discovered to be said homosexual? Do they refuse to serve homosexuals?

I mean, no one has provided even a shred of proof or examples of Chic fil a actually discriminating. So by all means, if you are saying Chic Fil A is discriminatory, then please show us all the proof. Just because the President or whatever has a personal opinion about something doesn't mean the business discriminates against said something.

So do please, show the proof.

The proof of the politician's discriminatory attempts and threats is in their own letters. Plain for all to see. So show the same for Chic fil a please. You must have a copy of their internal memos saying to discriminate against homosexuals? Right? You must have examples of lawsuits of people fired because they were homosexual or refused to be hired solely because they were homosexual?

Show the evidence please.

[Juan_Bottom]

I posted a link a page or so ago. "Chic-Fil-A" donates money to groups that oppose gay rights.


Here's a poll that asks if you will eat at "Chic-Fil-A." So far it's pretty close.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/PO ... 3ukCQ.cspx

[Lootifer]

A highly influential member of an organisation openly opposing something. Legally the highly influential member cannot actually do anything, but the act of openly opposing something is discriminatory in itself.

^^ Applies to both situations.

[Woodruff]

Wow! Iron clad proof of acceptable bigotry! in other worse..."you thought you had the freedom to speak freely, buy you don't!"

People, look at what is happening here. We are destroying the right for every single person to speak freely, all in the name of forcing acceptance of a privilege/"right" that has never existed since the beginning of civilization up until a few years ago in a handful of places.

I rest my case

Everyone can still speak freely, you just have to accept that any speech has consequences (foreseeable or otherwise).

Precisely correct. None of our freedoms are "complete freedom", nor should they be.

[Woodruff]

What is the significance of the Egyptian-looking symbol in the upper right-hand corner? It seems out of place.

[Woodruff]

Wow! Iron clad proof of acceptable bigotry! in other worse..."you thought you had the freedom to speak freely, buy you don't!"

People, look at what is happening here. We are destroying the right for every single person to speak freely, all in the name of forcing acceptance of a privilege/"right" that has never existed since the beginning of civilization up until a few years ago in a handful of places.

I rest my case

Everyone can still speak freely, you just have to accept that any speech has consequences (foreseeable or otherwise).


--Andy

Sure speech has consequences....but, from the government?????

Absolutely. If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, you will likely be arrested.

[notyou2]

Website water mark?

[Woodruff]

Taken from an interesting article I read:

Chicago became the latest city to tell Chick-fil-A it isn't welcome because its president doesn't support gay marriage, legal experts said the communities don't have a drumstick to stand on.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel became the second big-city mayor to blast the company over president Dan Cathy's comment last week that he is “guilty as charged” for supporting the traditional definition of marriage. Emanuel spoke up after Alderman Proco Joe Moreno announced he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location over his stance.

But barring the popular fast-food restaurant over the personal views of Cathy is an “open and shut” discrimination case, says legal experts.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.

“But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, said Moreno’s intentions raises “serious” constitutional concerns.

“It’s also a very slippery slope,” Turley said. “If a City Council started to punish companies because of the viewpoints of their chief operating officers, that would become a very long list of banned companies.”

If Moreno did indeed put such a plan into action, it would be “excessive and likely unconstitutional,” Turley said.

Wilson Huhn, a professor and associate director of the Constitutional Law Center at The University of Akron School of Law, echoed Turley’s stance, saying that a denial on behalf of Moreno regarding a second Chick-fil-A restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood would “absolutely” violate the First Amendment.

“It would be an open and shut case,” Huhn said. “You can’t do that. They cannot be denied a zoning permit based upon the viewpoint of their CEO.”

Moreno and Emanuel can express their personal opinion on the matter, Huhn said, including the organization of boycotts and protests against the fast food chain.

“But if official action were taken against Chick-fil-A based upon their opposition to same-sex marriage by denying them permits or to prevent their restaurant from expanding, that would absolutely be viewpoint discrimination,” Huhn said.

Meanwhile, in a statement released Thursday, the owner and operator of Chicago’s only Chick-fil-A restaurant — which created 97 jobs in the past year — invited Emanuel to meet with her. The invitation came after Emanuel said opening a second location in the city would be a “bad investment” following Moreno’s statement.

In a statement, Sarah Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said that the mayor said that Cathy did not share Chicago’s values.

“He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here,” Hamilton said in a statement. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but their values aren't reflective of our city.”

The Atlanta-based chain declined to comment for this story.

Reached by phone Thursday, Moreno first appeared to back away from his stance, saying traffic concerns drive his objections to the store. But when pressed,  Moreno refused to back off his criticism of Cathy’s position on same-sex marriage.

“No, I’m not saying that, I’m not walking back about from that,” Moreno said when asked if his objection to the restaurant has nothing to do with Cathy’s beliefs. “That’s another part of it .. I think businesses should be neutral on that. They should be selling chicken.”

Last week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that “it will be very difficult” for Chick-fil-A to obtain licenses for a restaurant in Boston. But on Thursday, Menino backed away from that threat, saying he won’t actively block the chain.

“I can’t do that,” he told the Herald. “That would be interference to his rights to go there.”
 

Good post, IcePack. You have convinced me (seriously).

However, I still maintain that our freedoms are not, and cannot be, absolute freedoms. There are always repercussions to the exercise of our freedoms.

[Woodruff]

Gee Phatty, when the restaurant chain discriminates you are in 100% agreement, but as soon as some city politicians fire back and form their own discriminatory practices you scream discrimination. Just another example of your duplicity.

I haven't actually seen evidence of them being discriminatory.

[Woodruff]

I posted a link a page or so ago. "Chic-Fil-A" donates money to groups that oppose gay rights.

That's not discrimination in an illegal manner.

[patches70]

I posted a link a page or so ago. "Chic-Fil-A" donates money to groups that oppose gay rights.

That is a different story to what you actually said-

Chic-Fil-a donated almost $2 million dollars to hate groups in 2009 -

Even the article you linked to never uses the term "hate groups". Why did you lie about that? Was that just a misspoken word or an attempt to manipulate opinion?

Let's take a look at these "hate groups" you linked to.

Marriage & Family Legacy Fund ( Oh my, they sound positively evil)
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes (everybody knows athletes are racists, just look at the Greek athlete who just got kicked out of the olympics. You might be onto something here, or then again, maybe not...)
National Christian Foundation (Christian, they must be evil then.)
Focus On The Family (by all means, no one should be focused on family, definitely a hate group)
Eagle Forum (Hmmm, eagle the national bird of the US, must be a hate group)
Exodus International (must be Jews, therefore a hate group obviously)
Family Research Council (family research, definitely hate filled)

You know, it would be nice if someone had compiled a list of actual hate groups so recognized by lawful means. Hmmm, Oh! You know, I'm pretty sure the US government has a great big list of actual hate groups! Right here-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... azxx_Y6IRw

Now, how much you wanna bet that every group listed in your link is not on the actual list of actual hate groups?

[notyou2]

That site is old and all the links are broken.

[notyou2]

This one is a great site...http://www.eagleforum.org/

[Woodruff]

Focus On The Family (by all means, no one should be focused on family, definitely a hate group)

I can honestly say I don't have much good to say about this organization, and it has nothing to do with a focus on family nor that they're Christian in nature. In fact, I would say that the name of the organization is actually counter to what they do.

They do, in my PERSONAL (not legal) opinion, come close to being an actual hate group.

[Juan_Bottom]

Even the Nazis called themselves "Socialists." Every murderous militia in Africa has "liberation" or "freedom" in their name.

There's nothing in a name. A rose by any other would smell just as sweet.

Any group that uses it's finances and influence to block the rights or freedoms of any minority without the justification of science or reason is a hate group.
Do you believe that there is some science that has found that Gay Marriage will negatively effect you? Please stop trying to manipulate opinion in favor of bigots who hate homosexuals for no reason whatsoever.

[Night Strike]

Wow! Iron clad proof of acceptable bigotry! in other worse..."you thought you had the freedom to speak freely, buy you don't!"

People, look at what is happening here. We are destroying the right for every single person to speak freely, all in the name of forcing acceptance of a privilege/"right" that has never existed since the beginning of civilization up until a few years ago in a handful of places.

I rest my case

Everyone can still speak freely, you just have to accept that any speech has consequences (foreseeable or otherwise).


--Andy

Then why are liberal politicians coming out and proudly supporting blatantly illegal discrimination against people who are speaking freely? I can guarantee you that these politicians are supporting more discrimination against Chick-fil-A than Chick-fil-A has ever done against homosexuals.

Gee Phatty, when the restaurant chain discriminates you are in 100% agreement, but as soon as some city politicians fire back and form their own discriminatory practices you scream discrimination. Just another example of your duplicity.

In their business practices, where exactly has any Chick-fil-A restaurant discriminated against a customer or employee because of their sexual orientation? This CEO made a religious and political statement while these mayors and councils are supporting discrimination against people they disagree with.

[BigBallinStalin]

A highly influential member of an organisation openly opposing something. Legally the highly influential member cannot actually do anything, but the act of openly opposing something is discriminatory in itself.

^^ Applies to both situations.

Is it discriminatory to reject businesses which wish to bring their slaves into a State in order to produce tobacco?

[laughingcavalier]

There is really a restaurant called chick-fil-a? And it is a christian family values outfit? Come on this must be a parody thread?

[Juan_Bottom]

In their business practices, where exactly has any Chick-fil-A restaurant discriminated against a customer or employee because of their sexual orientation?

When they donated almost 3 million dollars to anti-gay groups?

[Juan_Bottom]

[Juan_Bottom]

Liberal Honesty:




Conservative Value Honesty:

Click image to enlarge.

[notyou2]

Dishonesty, another christian value they subscribe to.

[Night Strike]

In their business practices, where exactly has any Chick-fil-A restaurant discriminated against a customer or employee because of their sexual orientation?

When they donated almost 3 million dollars to anti-gay groups?

Even if you claim they're anti-gay, that still doesn't mean the business itself has practiced any actual discrimination, which means that it is blatantly illegal for a city government to even threaten to block the business based on a political comment.

[isaiah40]

Any group that uses it's finances and influence to block the rights or freedoms of any minority without the justification of science or reason is a hate group.

This doesn't have to be a minority. According to your statement, since gay rights activists use their finances and influence to block the rights and freedoms without the justification of science or reason of parents who don't want their kids taught that being gay is perfectly normal is a hate group. Or how about the gay rights activists who are forcing churches to hire gays when it is against their religious freedoms? By your definition, the gay rights groups/activists are a hate group!!