"Popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A has reportedly been barred from opening a new location in the San Antonio, Texas, airport.
The San Antonio City Council on Thursday voted 6-4 to pass a new concessions agreement that excludes Chick-fil-A, citing the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history."
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... anti-lbgtq
Personally, I am horrified by this. If you don't like what a restaurant chain does then don't eat there. When a government official uses his power to prevent a restaurant from opening then that goes of against fundamental American values of neutrality and the separation of church and state.
For debate: Is banning Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history and acceptable practice?
No Chick-fil-A
Moderator: Moderators
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9911
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1194 times
- Been thanked: 1573 times
Post #41
Bust Nak wrote:RightReason wrote:
Your attempt at analogy is extremely poor. First, black people do not like it when people equate racism with differences of belief regarding the morality of homosexual acts. One is the judgment of a person and the other of a behavior.
Right, so the guy who oppose interracial marriage are not actually racist because they are not judgmental of a person but of a behavior? As for those black people who don't see the similarities between what they went through, and what they are still going through, and what is happening with gay people, should really re-examine their stance on gay people.
This analogy is at least also speaking about behavior and specifically sexual behavior at that so it is a much better analogy than comparing judging a person based on the color of his skin equivalent to judging a sexual behavior as moral or immoral based on what we can know and observe about man and his relationship to this world.
Or we could do interracial marriage?
And people that make these arguments should not be guilty of discrimination. Because quite frankly, we use this type of discrimination all the time in making determinations of that which is right/moral and that which is wrong/immoral...
Oh yeah, way to go compare gay people with adulators, bestiality, incest and paedophilia. Totally not de facto guilty of discriminatory at all.
It seems to me that some people take issue with interracial marriages.
Some take issue with those that have different skin color.
Some take issue with those that have a different sexual preference.
Fortunately for the world, religion is now used to discriminate against primarily one of these groups as apposed to all three (with exceptions). So we are making progress as a society it seems. Once religions die off completely, just imagine how well the planet should be able to get along!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #42
[Replying to post 41 by Clownboat]
As if on que: http://www.deepsouthvoice.com/index.php ... -on-video/
Go on, RightReason, tell me that woman (and the organisation she was speaking for) is not racist; that she was not making a judgmental of a person but of a behavior, of the morality of mixed race acts.
As if on que: http://www.deepsouthvoice.com/index.php ... -on-video/
Go on, RightReason, tell me that woman (and the organisation she was speaking for) is not racist; that she was not making a judgmental of a person but of a behavior, of the morality of mixed race acts.
Re: No Chick-fil-A
Post #44You do know that there are more Democratic Christians than Republican Christians?Elijah John wrote:
As far as I can see, you are simply repeating mindless charges, and mantras of the Left.
So, why is the right considered the religious party?
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9911
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1194 times
- Been thanked: 1573 times
Post #45
Was there no religion in the 20th Century? I think I missed that era.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3935
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1250 times
- Been thanked: 802 times
Re: No Chick-fil-A
Post #46I have a couple questions for both sides in this thread that are predominantly based on this post.Elijah John wrote:Is supporting traditional values "hate" now in this day and age? How so?
If a person does not accept the newest, most fashionable agenda of the Left, are they too, "haters"?
One is this: Who creates the right (that you all seem to accept) not to be discriminated against and who determines the bounds of said right?
As to the post atop, even stopping murderers was, at one time, the new thing, the next step in morality, the novel, the fashionable. Perhaps this happened in prehistory but every instance of "no you may not X" had a beginning. So to those who think it is not the government's place to keep away a business because it donates to Focus on the Family, how do you determine that this next step in morality is not equivalent to "don't murder" or "don't steal"? How do you know the next step to morality isn't in fact "don't give to pro-straight charities"?
To those on the other side: I ask you the same thing. Is every new morality correct, or do you also decide between them? If so, how? Could you give an example of a new moral fad that has caught on but that you have rejected and explain why?
