Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 50     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #151 
Denver:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chick-fil-a-denver-gay-marriage_us_55db2157e4b0a40aa3ab5900
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #152 
University of Nebraska-Kearney:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3507/chick-fil-banned-university-nebraska-because-ceo-pardes-seleh
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,057
Reply with quote  #153 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
PDad - I answered no and then elaborated.  Everyone is free to expand on their yes or no answers.
You didn't elaborate - you added something beyond the scope of Tyler's question. I elaborated on my yes.

As for the question, please share one of these "various" reasons understanding the context has been "religious beliefs" for as long as I can remember.
Why did you put various in quotes? I didn't use that word.

Edit:  Sure, if they can't pay they get no service.  If they destroyed the equipment last time they get no service.  I believe this would be stating the obvious and it's why I describe these non-answers as "purposely foggy".  I trust you know where I'm going with my question.

Wow, now you say the context is "religious beliefs" even though that hasn't been mentioned by any of your questions or my responses in this exchange. You should pose the question in that context if that's what you mean rather than leave it wide open. Tyler's question was a good example of how to do it.

There are a myriad of behavioral reasons that should apply to everyone, including gays. Do you think a business should have to serve someone that disrespects them? For example, "Are you one of those crazy Christian hypocrites that refuses service to gays?" Boom, there's the door for being a jerk.

Don't blame me for your inadequacies. I answer the question that is asked because that is the right thing to do. I don't presume to know what you mean. I don't change the question to something I want to answer like you do because that is dishonest.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #154 
Johns Hopkins:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/johns-hopkins-bans-chick-fil-a-from-campus-microaggression-against-lgbt-students/
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #155 
Banned from donating to a local high school fundraiser:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/education-2/chick-fil-a-banned-from-donating-200-sandwiches-to-a-school-fundraiser-for-the-most-ridiculous-reason
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,057
Reply with quote  #156 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I'm not sure if any city was ultimately successful, or if even more than one tried, but I believe a majority of Democrats will fight against city actions like these.

What a crock! Tyler has examples that gay activists proudly point to as successes. I don't know whether a majority of Dems are in favor of it or not, but I'm confident the ones opposed won't speak up out of fear of being ostracized and shouted down by the activists.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 29,183
Reply with quote  #157 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Thanks for the answer, but despite that, I believe that if more democrats are elected, owners of businesses could continue to be denied access to premium markets based on their beliefs.

Voters should know this about democratic candidates and their not wanting business owners to have their own personal beliefs.


I believe Boston also may have attempted to keep Chick-fil-A out. DC has a link up her sleeve to verify.

Thanks for the heads up on the actions of the Democrats to keep American businesses out of their neighborhoods that they disagree with on religious principles. Thanks for spreading the word about their prejudice and hate.

__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #158 
PDad - I think you're here to make the discussion more muddied.  Make it harder for me to share my perspectives.  Nit pick all the language and words.  Not unlike those who charge me with "presenting as fact" because I fail to use the "imo" on occasion.  Everyone else is guilty of this too.  I'll just keep plugging along the best I can and tackle these hurdles as they come my way.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 29,183
Reply with quote  #159 
Feel free to update the Chick-fil-A thread with all this new found news of the libtards assault on religious liberties. Why is dewy always on the wrong side of free enterprise?
__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,057
Reply with quote  #160 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Banned from donating to a local high school fundraiser:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/education-2/chick-fil-a-banned-from-donating-200-sandwiches-to-a-school-fundraiser-for-the-most-ridiculous-reason
Tyler, from what you've heard/read, has Chick-fil-A ever refused to serve all the community in a fair way or not agreed to follow the laws of the city?

Edited to fix Dewey's incorrect syntax.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,138
Reply with quote  #161 
Dewey - do you have any response to all of the links that Tyler has provided showing how a private company that holds certain views is being discriminated against?
__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #162 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad

Tyler, from what you've heard/read, has Chick-fil-A ever refused to serve all the community in a fair way or not agreed to follow the laws of the city?

Edited to fix Dewey's incorrect syntax.


I do not believe they have.  They have just been discriminated against for an executive voicing their opinion on gay marriage. 
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,365
Reply with quote  #163 

(CNN)–Cultural upheavals often occur in the most surprising contexts. Who expected that a clash between sexuality and religious liberty would be focused on a restaurant company mainly known for its chicken sandwiches?

And yet the controversy over Chick-fil-A is a clear sign that religious liberty is at risk and that this nation has reached the brink of tyrannical intolerance from at least some of our elected leaders.

The controversy ignited when Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, son of the company’s legendary founder, Truett Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he and his company “operate on biblical principles” and “are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.”

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Defining Chick-fil-A as “a family business,” Cathy went on to say that “We intend to stay the course. … 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.”

Media attention to Cathy’s comments revealed a radio interview he had given a few weeks earlier in which he commented that “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at (God) and say, ‘We know better than You what constitutes a marriage.'

“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we would have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about,” he said.

Within days, elected officials in Chicago, Boston and New York were pledging to deny the company access to their cities.

“Because of (Dan Cathy’s) ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward,” Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno said, in a threat echoed by
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was just as blunt: “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” he said. “We’re an open city. We’re a city at the forefront of inclusion.”

But the kind of inclusion he had in mind would evidently exclude Chick-fil-A.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who just recently married her lesbian partner, called upon New York University to kick Chick-fil-A off its campus.

Echoing the Boston mayor’s lack of irony, she also called for exclusion in the name of inclusion: “We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength, and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that.”

Within days, Moreno, Emanuel and Menino had qualified their statements somewhat, promising to operate within the law and constitutional limits. Those clarifications became necessary when legal authorities quickly recognized threatened violations of First Amendment rights.

To his credit, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, warned, “You can’t have a test for what the owner’s personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city.”

Note carefully that Chick-fil-A was not charged with discrimination in hiring or service but simply with the fact that its president and chief operating officer supports traditional marriage.

Note something else: Dan Cathy’s statements were explicitly religious. He made his comments to the religious press, including a Baptist newspaper. His comments were infused with his Christian convictions, the same convictions that have led the company to close for business every Sunday.

The threats made against Chick-fil-A betray the principle of religious liberty that is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution. Civic officials in some of the nation’s largest and most powerful cities have openly threatened to oppose Chick-fil-A for the singular reason that its president openly spoke of his Christian convictions concerning marriage.

When Quinn, one of the most powerful officials in New York, announces, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views,” is she also threatening the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques?

They, along with evangelical Christian denominations, openly oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. Cathy’s statements are completely consistent with his own denomination’s statement of faith and official declarations. He was speaking as a Christian and as a Southern Baptist, and he was speaking as a man who does his best to live and speak as he believes.

When Emanuel and Moreno tell Chick-fil-A to stay out of Chicago, are they audacious enough to deliver that same message to the churches, mosques and synagogues of their city that also oppose same-sex marriage? What do they do with the fact that their own state does not allow same-sex marriages?

This country is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage, and the controversy over Chick-fil-A is an ominous sign that many of the proponents of same-sex marriage are quite willing to violate religious liberty and to use any and all means to silence and punish any individual or organization that holds the contrary view – a view sustained by the voters in 29 states by constitutional amendments.

Addressing the intersection of same-sex marriage and religious liberty, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has warned that the government must not be “viewed as unfairly trying to pre-determine the debate or harass one side.”

That is exactly what some elected officials have just shown themselves ready to do. It will not stop with Chick-fil-A. Who will be next to be told to get out of town?


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #164 
pabar - I don't know of any case where a business has lost all legal battles to operate in a city.  In any case, I'm against prohibiting businesses from operating in a city because owner may be against abortion or gays.  I can't make my position more clear than that.  I think boycott is a better way to address this problem.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #165 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - I don't know of any case where a business has lost all legal battles to operate in a city.  In any case, I'm against prohibiting businesses from operating in a city because owner may be against abortion or gays.  I can't make my position more clear than that.  I think boycott is a better way to address this problem.


Readers notice how Dewey is moving the goalpost again...moving from bringing new businesses to a city to "all legal battles to operate in a city".  That was never the point, the point was cities are denying them access to new markets in the city.  Now it has spread to college campuses and even high schools not allowing them to donate because of their biblical view of traditional marriage.  No one at Chick-Fil-A is against gays or abortion.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,138
Reply with quote  #166 
Exactly right Tyler.  You proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's a left-driven movement to discriminate against businesses that hold beliefs with which the left does not agree.  Instead of admitting it, the goalposts moved.  Classic.
__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,057
Reply with quote  #167 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
PDad - I think you're here to make the discussion more muddied. (quite the contrary) Make it harder for me to share my perspectives. (not intentionally, it's just a natural byproduct of refuting your perspectives) Nit pick all the language and words. (it is necessary to clarify your ambiguous and otherwise flawed points and questions) Not unlike those who charge me with "presenting as fact" because I fail to use the "imo" on occasion.  Everyone else is guilty of this too. (there's a blast from the past - Dewey is spinning an oldie) I'll just keep plugging along the best I can and tackle these hurdles as they come my way.

I think you're trying to muzzle me in an effort to silence your opposition. Ramble on, spinmeister...
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #168 
Tyler - No moving goalposts.  A business may have lost a legal battle to the mayor of a city but I don't know if they appealed to a higher court and lost.  Do you?  It's my opinion a city can't deny a business but I'm not sure any have challenged them in court.  They should.

pabar - There are definitely some on the left fighting to keep these businesses out.  But not me.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #169 
Tyler - Do you want to slide those goalposts wherever you think they should be and ask me a specific question for clarification, or do you want to just leave that charge out there?  
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,138
Reply with quote  #170 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - No moving goalposts.  A business may have lost a legal battle to the mayor of a city but I don't know if they appealed to a higher court and lost.  Do you?  It's my opinion a city can't deny a business but I'm not sure any have challenged them in court.  They should.

pabar - There are definitely some on the left fighting to keep these businesses out.  But not me.


It's irrelevant what you're doing.  You have no impact on anything.

There are plenty of people in government, academia, Hollywood that are actively working to silence those on the right who disagree with them.  

Just look at global warming.  There are those on the left who advocate criminalizing having an opinion that is contrary to the theory that global warming is man-made.  Imagine that - being a criminal because of your beliefs.  

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #171 
pabar - There are people on the Right who want to take undocumented children out of school.  What's the point?  Of course there are people on all sides with some strange positions.  This seems more than irrelevant to our discussions.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #172 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - Do you want to slide those goalposts wherever you think they should be and ask me a specific question for clarification, or do you want to just leave that charge out there?  


I proved you moved them by your answer, the readers will be the judge whether you did or not.

Why did you make the insinuation that the owner of Chick-Fil-A was against gays and abortion?  Neither could be further from the truth, and abortion wasn't even brought up.  IMO, this is another attempt on your part to push the discussion where you want in to go and to further disparage the other side, and not address the actual complaint.  Hopefully the readers can see your attempted debate tricks, but I will remind them just in case.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,138
Reply with quote  #173 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - There are people on the Right who want to take undocumented children out of school.  What's the point?  Of course there are people on all sides with some strange positions.  This seems more than irrelevant to our discussions.


The huge difference, of course, is that you haven't shown anyone that has actually espoused this.  

Tyler gave you real-world examples of how those on the right suffer from discrimination.  Attached is an article proving that people have actually espoused jailing climate change deniers.  How many conservative speakers have had to cancel their college appearances because those on the left objected to them?

Your argument assumes without proof that what you're saying is so.  Isn't it possible that nobody is advocating what you say they're advocating?  Until you can show us some sort of at least minimal movement that people want to keep illegals out of school, we should all assume that it's completely wrong.

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888



__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #174 
Tyler - I make no insinuations just as I didn't move the goalposts.  Just because you accuse me of these things, doesn't make them true.  You are using old and never-ending talking points from the UCS right.  I mostly ignore them but I thought I'd try to set you straight this time around.  I guess you don't want to clarify what troubled you or ask me for clarification.

I'm simply suggesting personal opinions, legal donations, personal legal activity, whatever, should not make for sufficient reason to prohibit a business in a city.  If the business files a lawsuit, I believe the business wins and I believe they should win.  Whatever reasons these cities are prohibiting a business from coming in, you can plug in to my first sentence.  I was just using the two examples I often hear in the debate.

pabar - Trump, Cruz, and others have said they must go.  I know what that means.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #175 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - I make no insinuations just as I didn't move the goalposts.  Just because you accuse me of these things, doesn't make them true.  You are using old and never-ending talking points from the UCS right.  I mostly ignore them but I thought I'd try to set you straight this time around.  I guess you don't want to clarify what troubled you or ask me for clarification.

I'm simply suggesting personal opinions, legal donations, personal legal activity, whatever, should not make for sufficient reason to prohibit a business in a city.  If the business files a lawsuit, I believe the business wins and I believe they should win.  Whatever reasons these cities are prohibiting a business from coming in, you can plug in to my first sentence.  I was just using the two examples I often hear in the debate.

pabar - Trump, Cruz, and others have said they must go.  I know what that means.


You absolutely did move the goalposts and made a tiny, hopefully unforeseen change, to the discussion.  The issue at hand was the democratically controlled cities denying a business access to new markets because of a belief held by an executive.  You attempted to change the discussion to allowing them to not operate at all in the cities.  Of course a mayor can not influence that, but they can influence current and future licensing, which is what happened.  It was a nice attempt on your part, but fortunately we got back on to what the original discussion was about.

Edited to add:  Thanks for "setting me straight", another backhanded insult for the list.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,159
Reply with quote  #176 
I don't remember who he was, but there was that Tech company CEO that was fired for having donated some money to the traditional marriage thing in CA.

it is scorched earth against traditional values.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #177 
Tyler - Thanks for the accusations.  I had to set you straight that they weren't true.  It seems accusations aren't insults but telling the accuser they are wrong certainly is.  Another UCS double-standard and another UCS Conservative "woe is me" me gone unnoticed.  That rude Dewey.  He just won't let us accuse him of things without a retort.

My point was twofold.  Yes there are individuals trying to keep business out.  That said, business can file a suit and win, imo.  Not sure where you found the spin.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #178 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - Thanks for the accusations.  I had to set you straight that they weren't true.  It seems accusations aren't insults but telling the accuser they are wrong certainly is.  Another UCS double-standard and another UCS Conservative "woe is me" me gone unnoticed.  That rude Dewey.  He just won't let us accuse him of things without a retort.

My point was twofold.  Yes there are individuals trying to keep business out.  That said, business can file a suit and win, imo.  Not sure where you found the spin.


I will ignore the part of the post that is all about you and move on to the actual discussion.  Why should the business have to file a suit?  For an executive having a personal belief?  And people wonder why individuals don't trust our government.  And why would you say they were against gays and abortion?  None of their statements attacked gays personally and abortion was never brought up.  Let's stay on topic.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #179 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden


I will ignore the part of the post that is all about you and move on to the actual discussion.  Well you should because you made it mostly about characterizing me again.  You should stop charging me with wrongdoing every twenty minutes.  It sounds like a tattling child.  I'm sorry, but it does.  Why should the business have to file a suit?  They shouldn't.  Cities should not prohibit business from operating in their city based on the owner's political or religious beliefs.  For an executive having a personal belief?  And people wonder why individuals don't trust our government.  Nobody wonders that.  And why would you say they were against gays and abortion?  I didn't.  I said if one were against gays and/or abortion, it's still not a reason for prohibition.  None of their statements attacked gays personally and abortion was never brought up.  Let's stay on topic.  The topic was about a party rental business last I looked.


Tyler - You know, earlier, I was going to say I don't know of any business who has challenged these cities and lost a legal decision.  I knew PDad would come along and say they lost to the mayor, he's a legal authority, so that means they lost a legal battle.  Rather than going through all that, I changed it to exercising all legal challenges, and worded it poorly by saying "lost all legal battles".  My point was to say I don't know if a court has ruled in this matter yet.  Do you?
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,365
Reply with quote  #180 
You guys are kicking a dead horse:


Reply with quote  #1474 
As I listen to critics of our outgoing AG and President Obama, as they relate to immigration and the DACA act, I find the occasional suggestion that Democrats favor children being raped, directly or indirectly, a complete sideshow.  Such an argument is clearly meant to muddy the truth.  I think it's important voters know the kind of things the GOP would like to do.  Here's one.  If I understand their position correctly, the GOP favors going into colleges and universities, finding all those students who were brought into this Country illegally when they were 1-10 years old, pull them out, and deport them back to their home Country.  The question today is what percent of Americans would support such action?  I say less than 10%.  What say you?

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.