Openly gay New York Democrats oppose plan to open Chick-fil-A restaurants along I-90

All guns blazing! Graham goes to war to save sandwiches!

I only don't know how to wrap my head around why would students not love sandwiches. It's beyond me.

Look at his tweet!

https://fox28media.com/news/local/s...end-chick-fil-a-after-students-start-petition

Are you kidding me?

Everybody needs to chill.

 

That is a personal comment and basically saying I hate Christians. That's a personal attack.

You are taking sides for Chick-Fil-A when you're calling it like that. It's a fact that the company has done so.
"And I'm not siding with anyone"... sure. lol

Har har... I do regard this as trolling. The way the company supports discrimination has nothing to do with turning away clients. It's well known.

 

• Looks like all the hate comes from the anti-Chick-fil-A crowd.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  Why are some people so mad at Chick-fil-A?

• ". . . Fast-forward to the end of 2019, when all appeared to be water under the bridge
  
  That’s when the corporation announced, though not explicitly, that its charitable arm would stop donating to organizations with anti-LGBTQ ties, including the Salvation Army (which has also since been forgiven by some) and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and instead implement a "refined giving approach."
  
  Instead, it would focus on donating to organizations that support education, ending youth homelessness and fighting hunger.
  
  "On Monday ... for the first time ever, I was free to enjoy the delicious, Southern fried chicken of my choosing," rejoiced Esquire, echoing the relief of many. . . . "

 

Sure. How about you start a store, and you send the profits to ISIS. See how that works when your store has nothing to do with Islam.

 

The government is perfectly free to OPPOSE. However, it is not perfectly free to DISCRIMINATE.

 

Because they're LEFTISTS! Simple!

 

They are stressed because they don't get to eat good tasty and nutritious meat sandwiches. Only vegetarian.

 

Or vegan!

 

just like discriminating based on gender

 

You don't get it, but closer than the other people who replied. Let me use an extreme example just to show you where it comes from. Suppose Hitler were alive and free. Suppose he sold chicken sandwiches and then donated his profits to religious white supremicist groups. Should people be free to boycott his company? Obviously. What about the government getting involved? That's where it gets stickier but it'd be the most bitter pill to swallow for the 1st amendment. Promoting oppression. Though I have noticed republicans are outraged even by boycotts and it's not about the government shutting down chik fil a.

Now I'm not saying the ceo is Hitler, just using an extreme example to show you what it would be like if it were somebody whose positions you don't support.

 

And we have a Godwin’s law violation.

 

Free speech is no reason to try and shut down businesses.

 

Change the ritual.

 

We love ya, but you don't have the same rights as we do?

 

Why would you oppose same-sex marriage?

I remember where I lived in California where a church wanted to ring electronic "bells" before services and only stopped when the city council told them they had to stop the racket.

 

Not many oppose same-sex marriage.

 

Thanks for the laugh, but going full hitler doesn't help your argument. We can't have people running around deciding which brand of crispy chicken to consume on their own, can we?

 

Doubtful, since "In God we trust" is the official motto of the U.S.

 

Note it doesn’t say which God… There are thousands to choose from. Which is the only reason that blatant violation of the founders wishes was allowed.

 

SCOTUS does not consider it a violation.

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Justice O'Connor, concurring in the opinion, invoked the term in her analysis of the nature of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, saying in part

There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution – no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them. Given the values that the Establishment Clause was meant to serve, however, I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of "ceremonial deism" most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto ("In God We Trust"), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as "The Star-Spangled Banner", and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.

The term was coined in 1962 by the then-dean of Yale Law School, Eugene Rostow, and has been used since 1984 by the Supreme Court of the United States to assess exemptions from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Ceremonial deism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ceremonial_deism

 

ISIS is a recognized and listed terrorist group. Christianity is not. I'm sure you recognize the difference...don't you?

 

You're misrepresenting the situation. The OP is about the state of new york reconsidering leasing space to chick fil a. Private entities can lease to them if they want. And private citizens can boycott both chik fil a and those who rent to them if they want. Not the same for the government leasing to them.

 

Sorry, but this is an abuse of power and there is no excuse for government interference in this case. Lets switch parties and have conservative politicians block a lease for gay business owners because they personally find it objectionable.

 

Christians: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Me: Hate the belief, love the believer.

See how vacuous and condescending that sounds?

 

No I do not. I think that hating the belief but loving the believer is totally fine. I just hope that you apply it to conservative Muslims too.