Just got back from chick fil a

[Woody]

That would explain why your side of the aisle is against democracy (one person, one vote)--y'all wanna dictate to the rest of us.  Tell you what--take your argument to Utah, which has towns and counties that denied and continue to deny permits to liquor stores and tobacco vendors and see just how far you get with that crap.

What chutzpah!

"Our" side isn't trying to dictate personal views on religious topics such as homosexuality.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate what sort of health insurance coverage one buys.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate the manner in which one can express his or her political preferences.

That comment of here's really tickled me.  She supports government telling us ow much we can make, what kind of energy to use, what kind of car to drive, what insurance to purchase, why thoughts and opinions we may voice and she claime we want to dictate to people? :bull:

[clistensprechen]

That would explain why your side of the aisle is against democracy (one person, one vote)--y'all wanna dictate to the rest of us.  Tell you what--take your argument to Utah, which has towns and counties that denied and continue to deny permits to liquor stores and tobacco vendors and see just how far you get with that crap.

What chutzpah!

"Our" side isn't trying to dictate personal views on religious topics such as homosexuality.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate what sort of health insurance coverage one buys.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate the manner in which one can express his or her political preferences.

The House of Representatives stands to correct you on that.

[Woody]

That would explain why your side of the aisle is against democracy (one person, one vote)--y'all wanna dictate to the rest of us.  Tell you what--take your argument to Utah, which has towns and counties that denied and continue to deny permits to liquor stores and tobacco vendors and see just how far you get with that crap.

What chutzpah!

"Our" side isn't trying to dictate personal views on religious topics such as homosexuality.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate what sort of health insurance coverage one buys.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate the manner in which one can express his or her political preferences.

The House of Representatives stands to correct you on that.

What was that you said to me?  Oh, yeah.  Without proof you are just pontificating.
 Proove it oh irrelevant one. 

[wbcoleman]

That would explain why your side of the aisle is against democracy (one person, one vote)--y'all wanna dictate to the rest of us.  Tell you what--take your argument to Utah, which has towns and counties that denied and continue to deny permits to liquor stores and tobacco vendors and see just how far you get with that crap.

What chutzpah!

"Our" side isn't trying to dictate personal views on religious topics such as homosexuality.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate what sort of health insurance coverage one buys.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate the manner in which one can express his or her political preferences.

The House of Representatives stands to correct you on that.

What chutzpah!  The Democrats pass legislation, issue executive orders, fill the Federal Register with detailed regulations.  Meanwhile Democratic mayors issue explicit threats to punish businessmen who dare exercise their free speech rights.   The House of Representatives is currently the only thing protecting us from more of the same.

[clistensprechen]

That would explain why your side of the aisle is against democracy (one person, one vote)--y'all wanna dictate to the rest of us.  Tell you what--take your argument to Utah, which has towns and counties that denied and continue to deny permits to liquor stores and tobacco vendors and see just how far you get with that crap.

What chutzpah!

"Our" side isn't trying to dictate personal views on religious topics such as homosexuality.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate what sort of health insurance coverage one buys.
"Our" side isn't trying to dictate the manner in which one can express his or her political preferences.

The House of Representatives stands to correct you on that.

What was that you said to me?  Oh, yeah.  Without proof you are just pontificating.
 Proove it oh irrelevant one.

wbcoleman just verified this with his post, which also see. Speaking of which....where are the votes on jobs?

[wbcoleman]

coleman just verified this with his post, which also see. Speaking of which....where are the votes on jobs?

Where are the votes on a budget?  [In the House of Representatives.]

So, clara, you're getting to be as bad as kentay.  Why do you keep evading any serious response to anything?

[kentay]

Why Chick-fil-A's Homophobia is Bad Business
By Blue Texan on  August 02, 2012
ENLARGE
 
(Updated)
 

The right is buzzing today about Chick-fil-A's record sales yesterday. And it's pretty clear that now, Chick-fil-A is even more closely linked with the Teavangelicals than they were before.

But branding themselves as the Official Fast Food Chain of the Christian Right is a terrible long-term business strategy for them, for three reasons.

One, the demographic that opposes gay marriage -- older, white Christian conservatives -- is declining in this country. Businesses depend on growth, so tying your businesses' future prospects to a shrinking population is a losing strategy. Chick-fil-A now has the same problem as the Republican Party.

Two, the audience advertisers covet most -- the 18-49 crowd -- are in favor of gay marriage. By publicly embracing anti-gay positions -- including the support of hate groups -- Chick-fil-A is alienating the single most important demographic there is. And brand perceptions are very difficult to reverse once they've set in.

Three, this is a battle Chick-fil-A can't win. The majority of Americans support marriage equality. And no matter how many right-wingers stuff their faces with fried chicken sandwiches and pickles, and no matter how much money the company throws to the Family Research Council -- gay marriage is here to stay. To chain your brand to an increasingly unpopular anvil that has no chance of reversing itself is not an exercise of courage -- it's an act of self-indulgence.

Chick-fil-A might be enjoying record sales today, but let's see where they are in ten years. If I were KFC, McDonald's, BK -- or any chain that sold Chick-fil-A's easily knocked-off chicken sandwiches -- I'd go for the kill.

UPDATE
HRC makes a similar point, and notes Chick-fil-A's BrandIndex scores have plummeted since the controversy began.
( http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-bad-for-business )

[clistensprechen]

coleman just verified this with his post, which also see. Speaking of which....where are the votes on jobs?

Where are the votes on a budget?  [In the House of Representatives.]

So, clara, you're getting to be as bad as kentay.  Why do you keep evading any serious response to anything?

I don't avoid serious questions. Got a serious question?

If you mean that I'm not keeping up with every thread, that's because I'm busy and don't have time for more than just a couple of 'em at a time.

[clistensprechen]

Why Chick-fil-A's Homophobia is Bad Business
By Blue Texan on  August 02, 2012
ENLARGE
 
(Updated)
 

The right is buzzing today about Chick-fil-A's record sales yesterday. And it's pretty clear that now, Chick-fil-A is even more closely linked with the Teavangelicals than they were before.

But branding themselves as the Official Fast Food Chain of the Christian Right is a terrible long-term business strategy for them, for three reasons.

One, the demographic that opposes gay marriage -- older, white Christian conservatives -- is declining in this country. Businesses depend on growth, so tying your businesses' future prospects to a shrinking population is a losing strategy. Chick-fil-A now has the same problem as the Republican Party.

Two, the audience advertisers covet most -- the 18-49 crowd -- are in favor of gay marriage. By publicly embracing anti-gay positions -- including the support of hate groups -- Chick-fil-A is alienating the single most important demographic there is. And brand perceptions are very difficult to reverse once they've set in.

Three, this is a battle Chick-fil-A can't win. The majority of Americans support marriage equality. And no matter how many right-wingers stuff their faces with fried chicken sandwiches and pickles, and no matter how much money the company throws to the Family Research Council -- gay marriage is here to stay. To chain your brand to an increasingly unpopular anvil that has no chance of reversing itself is not an exercise of courage -- it's an act of self-indulgence.

Chick-fil-A might be enjoying record sales today, but let's see where they are in ten years. If I were KFC, McDonald's, BK -- or any chain that sold Chick-fil-A's easily knocked-off chicken sandwiches -- I'd go for the kill.

UPDATE
HRC makes a similar point, and notes Chick-fil-A's BrandIndex scores have plummeted since the controversy began.
( http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-bad-for-business )

Last time I checked, Chick Fil A gave the excuse that it's a private, not public, firm and is not required to release sales figures. Legally, that would be true, and I've heard that a lot of sales claims are nothing more than unfounded say-so. Did they actually release sales figures anyway? If so, I missed that part.

[wbcoleman]

I don't avoid serious questions. Got a serious question?

I sure do.  How the hell do you really justify public officials denying operating permits to a business based STRICTLY on their dislike of the owner's political opinions?

[clistensprechen]

I don't avoid serious questions. Got a serious question?

I sure do.  How the hell do you really justify public officials denying operating permits to a business based STRICTLY on their dislike of the owner's political opinions?

Because that's how towns and counties have done things like, forever (self-determination in government being the protected principle), with the exception of pornography shops which ARE covered by the First Amendment. Restaurants aren't the press even though Constitution thumping cons claim they are.

I take it you favor freedom for child **** industries to set up shop anywhere/everywhere too.

[Ted S]

A new development in the continuing Chick-fil-A saga; a one percenter gets canned:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/03/viral-video-man-picking-on-chick-fil-worker-gets-him-fired/

[RWE]

with the exception of pornography shops which ARE covered by the First Amendment.

So, You're saying that if the President of a pornoshop said the same thing as the president of Chick-Fil-A said, then it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to deny his company a building permit. But every other business in the country does not have that protection.
 ..."with the exception of pornography shops" I never realized that the constitution laid out specific freedoms for pornography. Our founders were really thinking ahead, weren't they.

[clistensprechen]

with the exception of pornography shops which ARE covered by the First Amendment.

So, You're saying that if the President of a pornoshop said the same thing as the president of Chick-Fil-A said, then it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to deny his company a building permit. But every other business in the country does not have that protection.

You must have bent over backwards to put that much effort into not getting what I was saying about the First Amendment and the protected Press. For some odd reason, the First Amendment doesn't seem to apply to Press that involves child ****, which means that the First Amendment isn't always applicable in all cases, involving the Press.

Chick Fil A is not Press and can't claim any sort of First Amendment rights to operate as, say, a regular **** shop does. Your problem is that you and your fellow cons attempt to tie First Amendment protections of what the president says to the operation of the president's business, and in that you persist in your error. No restaurant operation is protected by any First Amendment--only what its president says is, silly. The president remains free to say whatever he wants, then, now, and in the future.  His business does NOT have any constitutional right to operate anywhere--it's by permission only, and community standards apply to the granting or withholding or revocation of that permit. It is true for **** shops, it's true of FCC regulated broadcasters, it's true across the board.  The FCC in particular is a stickler for upholding that legal concept known as "community standards".

..."with the exception of pornography shops" I never realized that the constitution laid out specific freedoms for pornography. Our founders were really thinking ahead, weren't they.

You need to read the part of the First Amendment where it grants freedom of the Press. Wear your glasses if necessary.

[RWE]

You need to read the part of the First Amendment where it grants freedom of the Press. Wear your glasses if necessary.

you seem to have missed the whole point of this thread. The president of Chick-fil-a is an American citizen with the freedom of speech. When a government entity decides that they don't like what he says, and uses the power of government to treat his restaurant differently than they treat other restaurants as punishment for expressing his political and religious views, then  an American citizen has lost his freedom of speech.