I orderd $80 worth of food at Chick Fil A yestrday after gol

archer wrote:

CritiKalBill wrote:

archer wrote: I do respect every one's right to hold a view different from mine, or to disagree with me....I also reserve the right to disagree with them, to withhold my business because of their beliefs, and to point out their moral hypocrisy every chance I get.

So would you buy from a business that was owned by a Muslim who like most, do not believe in same sex marriage?

That's pretty funny.....how would I know if the owner of the business didn't believe in same sex marriage unless, of course, the CEO of said business made public statements to that effect to the media, and actively supported those groups that seek to discriminate against same sex couples, like the CEO of CFA did with the money he supplied to a marriage counseling organization that does not take same sex couples, then yes, I would probably not patronize that business. Everyone, like I have said over and over again, is entitled to their own opinion, and I won't punish them for that, but if they take that opinion to the media and make a big deal of it, if they actively engage in what I consider discrimination, then I reserve the right not to give them my business. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

never mind, I forgot, you do like to troll, and logic has no place in your posts when you are intent on baiting a liberal.

carry on....................

I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to understand your reasoning by just asking you some straight forward and relevant questions. This whole controversy started because Rahm seemed to think that he could block a business from entering "his" city based soley on the CEO's opinion of gay marriage.

My last question... do you think a business should be blocked from doing business in a city or state if the business owner or CEO doesn't have the "right" opinion on a social issue? Is that really a power Rahm Emanuel should have?

I already answered that question too, earlier in this thread.

I don't know if Rahm has that power, I have no problem with Rahm stating that he doesn't think CFA fits in with the community based on the CEO's beliefs, that is his right of free speech. I don't think he should actively bar them from opening stores. Let the people vote with their business.

archer wrote: I already answered that question too, earlier in this thread.

I don't know if Rahm has that power, I have no problem with Rahm stating that he doesn't think CFA fits in with the community based on the CEO's beliefs, that is his right of free speech. I don't think he should actively bar them from opening stores. Let the people vote with their business.

So we agree in part anyway. I agree with Rahms right to say whatever he wants as long as he doesn't try to do whatever he wants. And when he says this:

Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values."

It remind's me of this:

archer wrote:
I'm amazed at your ability to know exactly what someone, you don't even know, is thinking.

Or a million people he doesn't know. Rahm should be far more concerned about the crime rate in his city that is worse than the Mexican border. I'm pretty sure the people of Chicago would be much more satisfied with Rahm cracking down on criminals instead of preaching tolerance while being intolerant.

CritiKalBill wrote: Rahm should be far more concerned about the crime rate in his city that is worse than the Mexican border. I'm pretty sure the people of Chicago would be much more satisfied with Rahm cracking down on criminals instead of preaching tolerance while being intolerant.

Chicago’s murder rate is not proof that gun control doesn’t work. It’s proof that, in a country with one gun per citizen, local gun laws are meaningless.

Let’s look at Tokyo, one of the safest cities on that list, with a murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000 citizens. Japan’s constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to bear arms. Handguns are prohibited. Semi-automatic weapons are prohibited. Automatic rifles are prohibited. The only exceptions are hunting shotguns and target-shooting pistols. The penalty for illegal possession of a gun is up to 15 years in prison. Japan has a population of 127 million. In 2006, two people were murdered with guns.

Japan starts with the principle that citizens have no right to a gun, and forces them to prove they need one. The United States starts with the principle that guns are an inalienable right, and forces the government to justify banning them.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-ro ... z22hdy2Uyj

The kiss in flopped big time.

Raees wrote:

CritiKalBill wrote: Rahm should be far more concerned about the crime rate in his city that is worse than the Mexican border. I'm pretty sure the people of Chicago would be much more satisfied with Rahm cracking down on criminals instead of preaching tolerance while being intolerant.

Chicago’s murder rate is not proof that gun control doesn’t work. It’s proof that, in a country with one gun per citizen, local gun laws are meaningless.

Let’s look at Tokyo, one of the safest cities on that list, with a murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000 citizens. Japan’s constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to bear arms. Handguns are prohibited. Semi-automatic weapons are prohibited. Automatic rifles are prohibited. The only exceptions are hunting shotguns and target-shooting pistols. The penalty for illegal possession of a gun is up to 15 years in prison. Japan has a population of 127 million. In 2006, two people were murdered with guns.

Japan starts with the principle that citizens have no right to a gun, and forces them to prove they need one. The United States starts with the principle that guns are an inalienable right, and forces the government to justify banning them.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-ro ... z22hdy2Uyj

Gun control? Another shiney object. Even Van Jones gets it. Maybe a good internet detective can find his segment on This Week from earlier today.

They have already split the country up so liberals will live in NY and several places east They Need Love Nad closeness like 5' between themselves to exist. The rest of us will own the west and we will take CA by force if needed

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4dbx_y-nOY2ZhyoH5Ax_IDDZiJVBfn714-3VP5Xzi-ovKUiuVSQ