And the left yet again shows how tolerant they are

[75center]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Irish Cat]

It's "protesting" the CEO's stance. If you feel that someone or something is discriminating against a person/people you do what you can to curb it or stop it, in this case Denver doesn't want to award what they feel is a company that discriminates a spot in their airport.

 

But how has the CEO's position on gay marriage lead to Chick-Fil-A discriminating against gays? His personal believes should be irrelevant.

[Clyde]

Let's take this particular company out of it for sake of a somewhat intelligent discussion.

 

Does a city have the legal(key) right to say no to a legitimate business that is associated with or directly promotes something that offends a segment of that city's people?

 

Could the Bensonhurt city council say no to business owned by a person who has publicy stated support for groups such as Al-Awda (anti-Israel) even though his business does not discriminate?

[All Tell]

But how has the CEO's position on gay marriage lead to Chick-Fil-A discriminating against gays? His personal believes should be irrelevant.

There is no evidence at all the the company has done anything discriminatory either in service or employment. This is punishment for belief plain and simple. And regardless of how some on here have tried to spin it it is absolutely hypocritical.

Edited August 26, 2015 by All Tell

[gchs_uk9]

Liberals are only tolerant if it is a belief they support period.

 

These are the types of responses that come when you lump people into one of only two categories. Anyone who isn't conservative is therefore liberal and is "only tolerant if it is a belief they support period." I'd call myself more liberal than conservative (I'd say 70%/30%), but there are many posts on BGP that are conservative based that I agree with (at least in part). But when people throw these all-encompassing terms about then you never can get to the root of any issue with serious discussion because you are already predisposed to dislike the opinion coming from the person in a different category than you.

 

@Hellbird, I don't necessarily mean to throw this on you, but it's more of an opinion on almost every issue that comes up in this forum. I just wish we'd all stop painting with such wide brushes.

[75center]

Let's take this particular company out of it for sake of a somewhat intelligent discussion.

 

Does a city have the legal(key) right to say no to a legitimate business that is associated with or directly promotes something that offends a segment of that city's people?

 

Could the Bensonhurt city council say no to business owned by a person who has publicy stated support for groups such as Al-Awda (anti-Israel) even though his business does not discriminate?

 

No one is questioning whether it's legal, it sure seems to be. The issue is the hypocrisy, discrimination and intolerance being shown.

 

To those ok with this, would it be ok if another council said no to a gay business locating within it's boundaries because the business also offends a segment of it's people?

[Twotoplace]

The Cathy family's beliefs are not the issue. What's problematic is that corporate profits from the privately held company are donated to political groups pushing anti-gay laws and candidates.

 

Considering the fallout that occurred over Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" law, the Denver council is prudent to study this matter carefully.

 

Also, it might be wiser to license a 7-day-a-week restaurant at the airport vs. one that is closed on Sundays.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Twotoplace

[All Tell]

The Cathy family's beliefs are not the issue. What's problematic is that corporate profits from the privately held company are donated to political groups pushing anti-gay laws and candidates.

 

Considering the fallout that occurred over Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" law, the Denver council is prudent study this matter carefully.

 

Also, it might be wiser to license a 7-day-a-week restaurant in the airport vs. one that is closed on Sundays.

 

You'd be OK if a company that donates heavily to Planned Parenthood were blocked by a city council from doing business?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Jumper_Dad
R(8)

[Twotoplace]

You'd be OK if a company that donates heavily to Planned Parenthood were blocked by a city council from doing business?

Poor analogy. Try again.

 

Perhaps Chick-Fil-A should join ranks with the 200 or so large companies from coast to coast that have signed the pledge to be LGBT friendly. If not, then the company needs to realize that the causes you support define you ... and have consequences.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Jumper_Dad
R(14)

[mcpapa]

These are the types of responses that come when you lump people into one of only two categories. Anyone who isn't conservative is therefore liberal and is "only tolerant if it is a belief they support period." I'd call myself more liberal than conservative (I'd say 70%/30%), but there are many posts on BGP that are conservative based that I agree with (at least in part). But when people throw these all-encompassing terms about then you never can get to the root of any issue with serious discussion because you are already predisposed to dislike the opinion coming from the person in a different category than you.

 

@Hellbird, I don't necessarily mean to throw this on you, but it's more of an opinion on almost every issue that comes up in this forum. I just wish we'd all stop painting with such wide brushes.

 

 

Lots of broad brushes out there.

[mcpapa]

These are the types of responses that come when you lump people into one of only two categories. Anyone who isn't conservative is therefore liberal and is "only tolerant if it is a belief they support period." I'd call myself more liberal than conservative (I'd say 70%/30%), but there are many posts on BGP that are conservative based that I agree with (at least in part). But when people throw these all-encompassing terms about then you never can get to the root of any issue with serious discussion because you are already predisposed to dislike the opinion coming from the person in a different category than you.

 

@Hellbird, I don't necessarily mean to throw this on you, but it's more of an opinion on almost every issue that comes up in this forum. I just wish we'd all stop painting with such wide brushes.

 

There are two types of people.

 

People who divide people into two types.

People who don't.

 

 

Not sure what that makes me.:lol:

[All Tell]

Poor analogy. Try again.

 

Perhaps Chick-Fil-A should join ranks with the 200 or so large companies from coast to coast that have signed the pledge to be LGBT friendly. If not, then the company needs to realize that the causes you support define you ... and have consequences.

 

Poor analogy on your say so? I disagree. I think it's a great analogy that show the hypocrisy of the left.

[Twotoplace]

Poor analogy on your say so? I disagree. I think it's a great analogy that show the hypocrisy of the left.

Give me a real example of reverse discrimination, not the usual "it's not fair" and "what-if so-and-so ..." laments.

 

This isn't the first time that Chick-Fil-A faces expulsion. A California high school and at least one college (Johns Hopkins) have told the company no thanks.

[All Tell]

Two more examples of the left's hypocrisy and your inability to defend it.

[coldweatherfan]

The Cathy family's beliefs are not the issue. What's problematic is that corporate profits from the privately held company are donated to political groups pushing anti-gay laws and candidates.

 

Considering the fallout that occurred over Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" law, the Denver council is prudent to study this matter carefully.

 

Also, it might be wiser to license a 7-day-a-week restaurant at the airport vs. one that is closed on Sundays.

No matter how many times or how many ways you say it, it is still not acurate to says that the company discriminates. There is no evidence of it.

 

THE COMPANY does not give money to further anti legislation.

 

The company's profits are distributed to different people as income. Much the same way as any large corporation.

 

Where those individuals decide to distribute their income is up to them.

 

You can try all you want to say the family and the company are the same, but in the end they are not.

 

One is a corporation, the other is individuals.