Chick-fil-A location at DIA paused after Denver Council cites chain's LGBT stances

It is.
Combat discrimination based on sex = male/female gender issues is not allowed.
Combat discriminate based on sexual orientation = male-male/male-female/female-female gender things is not allowed.

As I said... it's blasted in 1 breath with race.

 

Discrimination is a thing on a personal level. When some person wants to discriminate others, than it should be perfectly fine to go and discriminate that guy and HIS business.

 

When the democrats take over from republicans and vice versa than are civil servants fired because of their moral stance on all kinds of subjects? Last time I checked, such is the custom. And suddenly it is now an ethical problem? Spare me the crocodile tears.

 

Seriously wtf.
You demand to economically support a person who likes to discriminate because that is the moral right thing to do.
As if! lol. Its perfectly fine to discriminate people and their means of making money when they support the idea to discriminate.
Tit for tat.

 

That's your defence? Civil servants get fired for all kinds of moral stances?

 

People are begging me to give an example how the company is discriminating anybody. (And I did gave that an adequate reply)
That doesn't make it untrue that this threat is full with people who do not got a problem with discriminating gays.
So I'm still going to decline that request to point that all out.

 

They get fired for their political views. And when it's normal to do that to civil servants by politicians. Than what is the moral problem when the same politicians apply that people who own companies?

 

The spaces on the airport are finite and its purpose is operating an airport!

The city council could use any criterion which can be used to accept or reject a particular operator.

What if a porno could both make more money and have more clientele that a restaurant? It remains that it easily acceptable it is not in keeping with the uses desired by a airport. even if a particular business is not "illegal", many customers may find it objectionable!

One major problem in this case is that the religious demands of this particular business is that the captive travelers of these location will not be able to be eat for a full day every week because it is closed!

Maybe Chic Filet makes lots of money and have a nice day off, but the airport and the travelers and the taxpayers are screwed a day every week!

 

There is a difference between all kinds of things. Who cares
We're discussing discrimination when things are different.

 

In other words...

"I have no examples of discrimination by Chik-Fil-A"

 

Porn falls under different laws. There are heavy restrictions on where an adult business can set up shop.

"Captive".

I'm sure there are other places in the airport.... the captives will survive!

They sure do.
They are so loved that a 6-day business week keeps them at the #1 spot on the "per store" profit lists for all fast food chains.

 

That's a valid and compelling point I hadn't considered.



​

 

Depends on what you term "freedom and justice", actually for that matter it depends a great deal on what you consider "oppression". Another person's opinions aren't oppressive until A: It becomes policy or B: You 'feel' oppressed by them

For Liberals, its usually option B that they hype up since very few in this day and age would risk an Anti-Discrimiantion Lawsuit and actually discriminate against other people. No, we find that true discrimination comes from the Liberals against those "with oppressive thoughts".

That's why Junkie here diminishes it by "fighting for a chicken sandwich", instead of what it was: A stand against Liberal tyranny who want you to be conformist. You're to say "this", not "that", you're to toe the line. You're to consider other's feelings, when they don't consider your own. Liberals, by and large do not believe in freedom.

Liberals believe in oppression via their self-pitying status. Since they "feel oppressed", you just happen to need to be oppressed too. Sorry about that.

 

Ten forty, that's exactly right.

 

Discriminate: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

Of course you're gonna decline, because you have nothing besides a lost argument.

Furthermore, religion and orientation don't even show up under the definition of discriminate. You'll have to find something else.

 

I think that is also a valid point.... that they want a 7 day a week business there..... but the politicians didn't say that... they said they don't want CFA violating the state's strict anti-discrimination law.

the council is politically posturing despite not being able to prove that CFA actually discriminates.

 

Yes? That's what I said. Along with religion and belief. Why did you leave that out? If this was in EU, since you're using them as your example, it would go against the Treaty of Lisbon to deny CFA to open its doors in the DIA. In other words, is that what you want?

 

*then

I don't think you understand the consequences of your statement.

 

Honestly, no offense, but I don't think you know what you're discussing.

 

That's the thing, we can wish they had a decent reason like the 6-day business week.
No one would have cared then.
But it's pretty obvious that has nothing to do with their reasoning.
Not sure why it was even mentioned.

 

Does that include discriminating against you or is it limited to right wingers?

 

Hi Thirty, hope all is well

"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit."

It happens every day on both sides. It is politicians who make it a divisive political issue. Yes, DIA discriminated, the same as when Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple last week. Both are discrimination, yet the right says "Kim Davis is exercising her right to religious freedom". The effect is the same, but you seem to be more focused on the cause.

Using "religious freedom" to justify one is a very slippery slope. If that's all it takes anyone could set up "Our Fervent Lady of the KKK" and discriminate against any race you choose. Thats why we have laws specifically designed to stop this very type of behavior. Whether or not you support gay marriage, you have to see the parallel to what the DIA did. The cause may be different, but the effect of BOTH is discrimination. The government discriminates daily in their laws. Most federal regulations are discriminatory by definition when they define who is affected by a regulation and who isn't.

I find this thread to be amazing. To think that the DIA is discriminatory, and to find that refusing gay marriage is "religious freedom" to me is crazy because one is a cause, the other is the effect. Its comparing apples to transmissions.

 

had that politician came out and said "it's because it was 6 days thing" this wouldn't be an issue. But even if that was the issue (and it's a valid concern), they said it was because of discrimination.....

and that' simply isn't true

me thinks there were numerous factors that went into saying no to CFA, 6 day work week being one of them. The politicians, though, chose to highlight the pretend homophobia to secure the gay vote in the next election and women like 'notme' have swallowed the bait so hard they are crapping it out the other end.

 

1) Being for Traditional Marriage does not mean you have a negative opinion. Sins come in all different ways.

2) Again you use ethnically instead of ethically.


Damn man learn...

 

That would depend. Are there other places to eat or is it just one place?