Chic-Fil-A (Media: DMV, legally, office)

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

As much as you'd like to postulate regarding theoretical scenarios, this is an actual event that happened that is roundly being rejected as unconstitutional.

If you want to turn this into a gigglefest regarding what would happen if a porn shop opened up in his back yard, go for it. It's been fun.

I'm not a big fan of some of the groups he gives money to. And I'd hate to see another chain show up in LS. But I'm less of a fan of the gvt squelching constitutionally protected free speech.

When speech implies condoning discrimination, the community has no resposibility to grant you special priveledges i.e. zoning favors. There is nothing unconstituitional about it.

[UserNam3]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

Sure, in the same way the KKK has the balls to state their beliefs. That doesn't make them right, and that doesn't mean we should want bigotry in our community.

Being against gay marriage isnt' equal to hating them. He guy simply answered a question while being interviewed.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Constitutional fetishists? Perhaps you could ease up on the rhetoric. It's not necessary to marginalized your ideological opposites in order to make a point.

What you fail to acknowledge or comprehend is that they cannot make legal decisions based on the religious or political leanings of an organization. They can say they don't like CF all they want because of their stance on gay marriage. But they cannot legislate based on these reasons.

I would ease up if people would just realize this is a stupid resaurant that people in the area dont want. I think it's funny that this has become the about the constitution. You know a document that allowed slavery upon inception.

Nope i get it, did they mention legistlation? I missed that one.

[UserNam3]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

When speech implies condoning discrimination, the community has no resposibility to grant you special priveledges i.e. zoning favors. There is nothing unconstituitional about it.

People have the right to state their opinion; especially when their being asked for an opinion on subject.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by UserNam3

People have the right to state their opinion when they're being ASKED.

Did anyone say otherwise?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by UserNam3

Being against gay marriage isnt' equal to hating them. He guy simply answered a question while being interviewed.

No but it denies someone rights.

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Please read the comments by the mayor regarding CF in Chicago and see if you still think your post is accurate.

I might have missed it but I haven't heard the mayor critcize Christianity, and i do believe that it was the alderman who denied CFAs request, not the mayor. Your charge of religous bias is based on assumption, not evidence. Unless there is evidence that theses two have some kind of anti-Christian background, you just ain't got much of a case.

[UserNam3]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

No but it denies someone rights.

He's not denying anyones rights. It ain't like he said gay people aren't welcome to eat there.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by UserNam3

He's not denying anyones rights. It ain't like he said gay people aren't welcome to eat there.

Huh? Who would eat there? I am talking about gay peoples right to get married and all the legal ramifications of marriage.

[ERS-One]

Does it honestly matter what Joe Moreno told the media his reason for denying the variance was? Isn't the only thing that matters is that there's a legitimate reason on the request's application filed away at the City Clerk's office, or wherever?

I'm honestly curious, because it seems like the only thing that would matter is that there's a legitimate reason noted in the paperwork of the denial. There's a lot of hand wringing and crying that the Constitution has been shredded here. Anyone see the paperwork? Does it say person "X" was denied request "Y" because they are a bigot? I doubt it.