Chick-fil-a
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
He is saying the spirit of the city is against discrimination and so does not condone the comments of owners or businesses declaring opinions which discriminate against particular groups of people.
As a philosophical business model there's nothing in that which would go against generally growing a city. Rather the contrary.
Unless of course you would prefer the country to grow and feel more like Bosnia.
Far as I know this is what the man said:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in that interview. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Where in that statement does he say that Chik-fil-a will discriminate against gays as employee's, or as customers?
It is also then discrimination against those who believe marriage should be between one man and multiple women and vice versa.
This discrimination language is bullshit. Society draws lines everywhere, from rest rooms to rest homes.
This whole issue is agenda pushings.
If it were about discrimination civil unions would be enough.
This discrimination language is bullshit. Society draws lines everywhere, from rest rooms to rest homes.
This whole issue is agenda pushings.
If it were about discrimination civil unions would be enough.
BTW, here is the first ammendment:
âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.â
My interpretation of it is that "the people" have these rights. The question is was Rahm speaking as part of the people, or as a representative of the government? IMO, if he was speaking as the later he is not entitled to freedom of speech. Government representatives are no longer part of the people, they are the government, and should be limited in their powers and freedoms.
If that is indeed what he said, I think you know full well that it is an in-your-face dog-whistle comment with an almost gossamer-thin veneer of plausible deniability. Just enough for guys like you to obfuscate the obvious. It may be his right to say so, which it is, but why hide behind a proverbial skirt after making such a "brave" pronouncement?
So you agree that he never said the company discriminates against gays. Just because a person does not support gay marriage does not mean they will discriminate against gays in the work place. Why would they? Gay people eat chicken too. Gay people are fully capable of being productive workers.