Just got back from chick fil a

[Woody]

Why Chick-fil-A's Homophobia is Bad Business

,


Chick fila as a company has no issues with homophobia nor has the company violated hiring or firing laws, or laws that affect service.  The owner has offered a personal opinion of marriage that may offend divorced people, couples who live together outside of marriage, non Christians.  Gays are included those who may feel offended,


Just wanted to bring you guys, (kicking and screaming) back to the truth,

[Woody]

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.

 :bull: :bull:


Not much else nees to be said concerning Clara's post.   

[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?

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.

Are you deliberately failing to understand the situation?

NO ONE has accused Chick-fil-A of ANY unlawful behavior of any kind.  The accusation is that the owner has incorrect opinions.  Don't you get it?

[clistensprechen]

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.

...and you missed the point that your point isn't a point. Unless and until Chick Fil A is a member of the press, there is no protection of its operation in any state, in any city, in any where in the U.S. Denying a permit to operate does not prevent the president from ever speaking his mind again. He still has the freedom to speak.

You don't have a point.

[wbcoleman]

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.

...and you missed the point that your point isn't a point. Unless and until Chick Fil A is a member of the press, there is no protection of its operation in any state, in any city, in any where in the U.S. Denying a permit to operate does not prevent the president from ever speaking his mind again. He still has the freedom to speak.

You don't have a point.

Let me get this straight.  In your view, the First Amendment protects "the press" and no one else???

[clistensprechen]

Wrong. I say that the First Amendment doesn't protect a business from getting its permit yanked, and that there's no First Amendment entitlement program for any business.

[wbcoleman]

Wrong. I say that the First Amendment doesn't protect a business from getting its permit yanked, and that there's no First Amendment entitlement program for any business.

So, you're saying that the government can threaten your livelihood based strictly on what officials think of this forum, which you run?

[clistensprechen]

Wrong. I say that the First Amendment doesn't protect a business from getting its permit yanked, and that there's no First Amendment entitlement program for any business.

So, you're saying that the government can threaten your livelihood based strictly on what officials think of this forum, which you run?

My livelihood isn't this forum. MAN are you stretching things...desperate, huh?
The First Amendment isn't any business' entitlement program to permits. Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

And local government is just that: local. Deal with it.

[wbcoleman]

Wrong. I say that the First Amendment doesn't protect a business from getting its permit yanked, and that there's no First Amendment entitlement program for any business.

So, you're saying that the government can threaten your livelihood based strictly on what officials think of this forum, which you run?

My livelihood isn't this forum. MAN are you stretching things...desperate, huh?
The First Amendment isn't any business' entitlement program to permits. Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

And local government is just that: local. Deal with it.

Yes, I know your livelihood isn't this forum.  I said, your position is that the government is permitted to threaten your livelihood [whatever it may be] based upon the content of this forum, for which you are being held responsible.  That is the position you are taking, that there is nothing to prevent government officials from doing this against you.

And longstanding SCOTUS precedents have applied the First Amendment to state and local governments.  Too bad you don't believe in the First Amendment.

[RWE]

Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

You're just saying "If you speak freely and say something the government doesn't like, then its OK if the government makes you pay for it." That will teach everyone in the country not to speak freely won't it. Exactly what you left-wing Stalinists want. Everyone afraid to speak freely.

[wbcoleman]

Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

You're just saying "If you speak freely and say something the government doesn't like, then its OK if the government makes you pay for it." That will teach everyone in the country not to speak freely won't it. Exactly what you left-wing Stalinists want. Everyone afraid to speak freely.

Did they get the idea from Lenin, or does it go back to Robespierre?

[clistensprechen]

Wrong. I say that the First Amendment doesn't protect a business from getting its permit yanked, and that there's no First Amendment entitlement program for any business.

So, you're saying that the government can threaten your livelihood based strictly on what officials think of this forum, which you run?

My livelihood isn't this forum. MAN are you stretching things...desperate, huh?
The First Amendment isn't any business' entitlement program to permits. Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

And local government is just that: local. Deal with it.

Yes, I know your livelihood isn't this forum.  I said, your position is that the government is permitted to threaten your livelihood [whatever it may be] based upon the content of this forum, for which you are being held responsible.  That is the position you are taking, that there is nothing to prevent government officials from doing this against you.

And longstanding SCOTUS precedents have applied the First Amendment to state and local governments.  Too bad you don't believe in the First Amendment.

Continuing to stretch the facts, you are..sorry, but no SCOTUS ever has ever applied the First Amendment to business permits. Ever. Never ever ever never ever. I also guess you haven't noticed that Chick Fil A has more than one shop open, so there's no issue of livelihood either.  It's a matter of people's right to self determination in local government. 

[clistensprechen]

Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

You're just saying "If you speak freely and say something the government doesn't like, then its OK if the government makes you pay for it." That will teach everyone in the country not to speak freely won't it. Exactly what you left-wing Stalinists want. Everyone afraid to speak freely.

Umm, you're confusing local government with federal government. This isn't a federal case because the First Amendment isn't even remotely involved in the local issuing of permits unless the business is a publication. Restaurants don't qualify as the Press. No single business president does, either.

There are consequences for everything everybody says. That's life.

[Woody]

Clara's weak justification to support this is based on counties and towns being dry, not allowing liquor to be sold which is probably a religious reasoning.  The hole in her theory is that in the case of dry counties or towns (I lived in one) is that ALL establishments of this type were disallowed.  The se counties or towns are not singling out ONE business based on the comments of one man.


May she is being contrary just to argue.

[RWE]

Because that's how towns and counties have done things like, forever (self-determination in government being the protected principle),

I just have to point out the irony here. In 32 States since 1998, voters have used the "protected principle" to "self" determine that marriage is only for heterosexuals. Clara...? Do you support self determination?
Now you're saying that the First amendment Does not apply to state or local governments? I guess you now believe that local governments can establish religious practices in their schools and courts too.