It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's an absolute side issue that is tacked on to this debate for the sole purpose of diversion of facts.
Yep, and there are plenty of faiths that allow for gay marriage, even many christian denominations.
As with everything it takes government stepping in to screw it to hell.
Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by grey580
When you cross that line and support the denial of anothers rights then there's a problem.
What right did they Deny anyone????
I misquote myself by saying they, it should be he! ONE man who owns a corporation made a comment based on his beliefs! Last time I checked our Constitution, that was allowed in this country! I don't care one iota if people are pissed and want to picket or boycott them! What I do care about is Mayors who come out and tell franchisees that they are not welcome in their cities!!!! That is illegal and you damn well know it!
But consider this, before you make your picket signs and go try to shut down a person who did nothing more than invest their money into a business and product that they believe is good, make damn sure that you have a good employment rate in you city before your politically and unconstitutionally ban a business from coming into your city!!!!
The franchisee didn't do one damn thing wrong to anyone!!!! Think about it!
Divide Manipulate Control
Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by krossfyter
That's what this debate is about. Simple.
The other conversation about licensing is important, but not the center of this debate. We shouldn't support the funding of companies that are going to pursue activists roles in denying rights to other Citizens. The end.
Opinions are fine, as long as you aren't restricting the rights of others. That is all.edit on 1-8-2012 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)
Again Chic-fil-A has the right to say anything they want.
Hell we allow the KKK to blurt out their hate.
Freedom of speech isn't the issue.
Chic-fil-A is donating money to known hate groups.
linky
It's obvious that the owner is actively supporting hate groups that work to deny lbgt equal rights.
That's my point of view.
If it was just the Chic-fil-A owner expressing his view. I don't think this would of blown up the way it has.
agreed. funding groups that deny equality rights of other tax paying citizens is wrong. they have a right to their opinion and a right to say it but i also have a right not to give them my money.
Originally posted by seeker1963
What is a hate group??? Someone that the Southern Poverty Law Center says is???? I am a veteran and a member of Oath Keepers and yet I am considered a terrorist because the SPLC says I am, and Homeland Security has also said that veterans need to to be watched because they may be a threat!!!!
So this guy that exercises his 1st Amendment right should be penalized????
You really need to rethink what is an obvious agenda that has been implanted into your brain from a partisan organization!
Aren't the people who are boycotting Chic Fil A a hate group???? After all, they HATE the corporate owner!
Originally posted by grey580
Originally posted by seeker1963
What is a hate group??? Someone that the Southern Poverty Law Center says is???? I am a veteran and a member of Oath Keepers and yet I am considered a terrorist because the SPLC says I am, and Homeland Security has also said that veterans need to to be watched because they may be a threat!!!!
So this guy that exercises his 1st Amendment right should be penalized????
You really need to rethink what is an obvious agenda that has been implanted into your brain from a partisan organization!
Aren't the people who are boycotting Chic Fil A a hate group???? After all, they HATE the corporate owner!
I didn't say he should be penalized for speaking out his mind.
And no they are not a hate group.
The boycotters are not denying Chic-fil-A rights.
They are expressing their opinion as well, with their wallet.
The other conversation about licensing is important, but not the center of this debate. We shouldn't support the funding of companies that are going to pursue activists roles in denying rights to other Citizens. The end.
We will deny a Marriage License Application when an applicant cannot provide proof that a previous marriage has ended due to divorce, annulment, or death of the other spouse.
There are occasionally times when a person applying for a Marriage License was once a victim of identity theft.
We have created an appeal process to assist people who have had their identity stolen and used to apply for a fraudulent marriage.
We work with the City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) to have a forum for you to redress the denial of your Marriage License Application without incurring the expense of a lawsuit.