Quantcast

Hypocrisy over the Chick-Fil-A debate

rustex782 2012/08/03 16:37:05
But. . . . THATS different
Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Think Banning a chick-fil-a is wrong?

Although the 21st Amendment repealed the prohibition of alcohol on the federal level,
that Amendment also specifically prohibits the selling or production of
alcohol in violation of state laws. Some states after the repeal passed
local option
laws granting counties and municipalities, either by popular vote or
ordinance, the ability to decide for themselves whether to allow
alcohol.


Many dry communities do not prohibit the mere consumption of alcohol,
which could potentially cause a loss of profits and taxes from the sale
of alcohol to their residents in "wet" (non-prohibition) areas. The
rationale for maintaining prohibition on the local level often is
religious in nature, as many Protestant Christian denominations discourage the consumption of alcohol by their followers (see Christianity and alcohol, sumptuary law, and Baptists and Bootleggers).
While state law does not allow for dry counties, similar laws designed
to restrict the sale and consumption of alcohol also are common in the
mostly LDS (Mormon) state of Utah.
Utah state law prohibits local jurisdictions from exercising control
over liquor laws. An additional, more pragmatic intent of these laws
often is to reduce alcohol consumption in that particular county (and
the potential health, safety, and public order issues that can accompany
it) by limiting the ease of acquiring it.

christians against alcohol

Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate habits of consumption. Black's Law Dictionary
defines them as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or
extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter
of apparel, food, furniture, etc."[1] Traditionally, they were laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures.


Throughout history, societies have used sumptuary laws for a variety
of purposes. They attempted to regulate the balance of trade by limiting
the market for expensive imported goods. They were also an easy way to
identify social rank and privilege and often were used for social discrimination.[2]


This frequently meant preventing commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats and sometimes also to stigmatize disfavored groups. In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.[2]







Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Doc. J 2012/08/03 17:21:31
    Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
    Doc. J
    +4
    Religion = voluntary (and sometimes involuntary) SLAVERY.

    None for me, thanks.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Odinsown 2012/08/12 16:39:02
    Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
    Odinsown
    I however think that all prohibition and sumptuary laws are wrong. I don't agree with the Chuk-fil-a guys opinion, but i also don't think we should ban or penalize his company for it using the law. I say just don't eat there.
  • Mr Chin 2012/08/06 05:30:06
    Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
    Mr Chin
    Yes people should have the right to choose and to have a business. But the chicken thing is getting old. So here's some dead old farts doing the chicken dance on the Lawrence Welk Show.
  • Ozymandias 2012/08/05 20:51:43
    Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
    Ozymandias
    +1
    Maybe they should campaign to make incest and beastiality in the South illegal before they decide the fate of homosexuals.
  • Hamilton 2012/08/05 09:32:44
    But. . . . THATS different
    Hamilton
    +1
    As coherent thinking would show you.
  • rustex782 Hamilton 2012/08/05 17:36:15
    rustex782
    oh. . . please elaborate
  • Hamilton rustex782 2012/08/06 04:04:48
    Hamilton
    Oh, I could, but you wouldn't understand it....
  • rustex782 Hamilton 2012/08/06 04:06:52
    rustex782
    that's what i thought. you had nothing. take your time and think of something. . . . . . . . . come back when you have some ideas
  • Hamilton rustex782 2012/08/06 04:28:43
    Hamilton
    Do you REALLY think that these two situations are at all comparable??

    Please.

    The issue of local latitude over issues of a controlled substance is hardly comparable to the redefinition of marriage to something it has never been anywhere at any time in history.

    Not even Classical Greece of the 5th Century BCE, which had the most tolerant view of gay relationships in the western world, had same sex marriages.
  • MarinerFH 2012/08/04 21:14:12
  • Lizzeh MarinerFH 2012/08/05 17:49:48
    Lizzeh
    +1
    It's LGBT.
  • MarinerFH Lizzeh 2012/08/06 01:41:05
  • dallasjoe 2012/08/04 18:21:01
    Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
    dallasjoe
    +3
    Yes and the Christian Right has called for a Boycott of Kraft foods CocaCole Costco Apple Comp Gap clothing Disney, P&G; Microsoft beause these companies supply medical care for same sex couples. The right thinks it is OK to boycott these companies over their free Speech choises but evil when you want to Boycott ChickFilA
  • Chris- ... dallasjoe 2012/08/04 18:25:32
    Chris- Demon of the PHAET
    +3
    THANK YOU dallasjoe! I have been saying the same thing on a lot of these Chick-fil-A polls. Usually I get met with silence.
    clapping gif
  • Cognito22 Chris- ... 2012/08/04 20:08:54 (edited)
    Cognito22
    Probably because no one is objecting to boycotts.
    Not even the Conservatives.
    So your objection is pointless.
    LOL
  • Chris- ... Cognito22 2012/08/04 21:19:07
    Chris- Demon of the PHAET
    +1
    I've spent the last two or three days on Chick-fil-A polls and there is much objection the the boycott.

    I read your response to dallasjoe and I suggest you go read through some of the threads on other polls. Gay slurs abound.

    You have nothing against boycotts and don't use gay slurs? That's great. Glad to hear it. We can agree to disagree on this issue which is how civilized people behave.
  • Cognito22 Chris- ... 2012/08/04 22:16:55 (edited)
    Cognito22
    So, like Harry Reid you make an accusation and it's up to me to prove it false?
    When did justice or sanity start working this way?
    This is the type of things that makes Liberals look like whackos.
    If you have proof, just link to it. Otherwise, don't bother me.
    DallasJoe has already shown himself to be a liar, you going for it too?
  • Chris- ... Cognito22 2012/08/04 22:47:16
    Chris- Demon of the PHAET
    +1
    You don't need links. You've been on the polls.

    I won't bother you anymore.
  • Cognito22 dallasjoe 2012/08/04 20:07:17
    Cognito22
    LOL
    Now all you have to do to make your argument have any validity is to find someone who says it's wrong to boycott Chic-Fil-A.
    Good luck with that.
  • dallasjoe Cognito22 2012/08/04 20:21:31
  • Cognito22 dallasjoe 2012/08/04 20:40:37
    Cognito22
    And I support your right to do so 100%. You go dude.
    I did a word search on all three pages for 'fag' and the only match was yours.
  • dallasjoe Cognito22 2012/08/04 20:42:10
    dallasjoe
    yeah right
    good bye and enjoy your chicken at Church
  • Pele Emerging 2012/08/04 08:43:37
    But. . . . THATS different
    Pele Emerging
    +1
    Sigh....it IS hypocritical, but it's also different. Kansas, according to my best friend, a native of the state, is a dry state. In order to drink in Kansas you belong to a private 'club' where you have your own bottle of booze and are served from that bottle. I think that's really stupid. I don't live in Kansas. I'm not LIKELY to live in Kansas. The people of Kansas have their own laws and have decided that this is the way they wish to live. The feds need to stay out of it, just like the feds need to stay out of the states which have approved medical marijuana.
  • rustex782 Pele Em... 2012/08/04 08:52:36
    rustex782
    ok so my point is: that banning a business is . . . banning a business. its either OK for gov to ban a business or its not ok for gov to ban a business. We cant have it both ways. It doesnt make it ok to ban a business in the name of jesus and then turn around and say its wrong to ban a business who "does" have christian beliefs and then say the muslims shouldnt be allowed to build mosques. It bouncing back and fourth too much. laws need to be consistant and equal. I PREFER that gov can not ban ANY business or organizations unless they pose a real threat to society.
  • Pele Em... rustex782 2012/08/04 08:54:49
    Pele Emerging
    Only if you ban ALL fast food restaurants or ban ALL restaurants selling chicken. In dry states and counties, liquor is restricted, but the restrictions are for all, whether or not you agree with them. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you just refuse to entertain that free speech doesn't have to be something you either like or support.
  • rustex782 Pele Em... 2012/08/04 09:00:24
    rustex782
    OK so once again i am FOR government NOT being involved with banning ANY businesses whatsoever. that is the ONLY way this is going to be fair and right or we are going to be having this fight in the USA until the end of time.
  • Eddie_DOMA_is_dead 2012/08/03 23:47:16
  • rustex782 Eddie_D... 2012/08/04 00:44:47
    rustex782
    in comparison to the so called "Ban" on the chick-fil-a store in chicago
  • Eddie_D... rustex782 2012/08/04 02:06:06
  • twocrows 2012/08/03 22:07:00
    But. . . . THATS different
    twocrows
    +2
    actually, it IS different.
    when liquor is prohibited in a jurisdiction the prohibition applies to ALL establishments that serve liquor. so, by your logic, no restaurants in the areas that are promoting getting rid of Chick-fil-A would be allowed to serve chicken sandwiches. KFC and Popeyes would just be sol.

    meanwhile, I'm happily boycotting CFA and I gave to the ACLU and to The Human Rights Campaign on 8/1,
    the appropriate venues ARE boycott and donations to good causes - - not legislating against free speech. or - where does it end? will I be prohibited from supporting my LGBTQ friends? or espousing my liberal values? I certainly hope not.

    we don't need a Constitution to protect speech we agree with.
  • rustex782 twocrows 2012/08/04 00:45:19
    rustex782
    they werent banned for serving chicken
  • twocrows rustex782 2012/08/04 01:29:56
    twocrows
    +1
    chicken is what they serve [with a side of bigotry, of course, but still . . . .]

    but the other points were the more important ones. if we only allow speech we agree with in this country, why bother having a Constitution in the first place?
  • rustex782 twocrows 2012/08/04 06:06:15
    rustex782
    According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.


    Prohibited speech

    Fighting words—speech that would incite hatred or violence has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years.
    Advocating illegal activity—speech that would encourage others to engage in illegal activity is not afforded any protection.

    Limitations Placed on Speech

    Commercial speech—a specific type of speech afforded First Amendment protections.
    Obscenity—is regulated, and depending on the context, can be prohibited.
    Defamation—publishing a statement that is false, although proffered as fact, that is harmful to the reputation of another person or organization.
    Profanity—different from obscenity, profanity can be regulated if it is integrated into speech that is clearly prohibited.
    Copyright, trademark and patent—regulated by law and giving owners exclusive rights, others are pr...

    According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.


    Prohibited speech

    Fighting words—speech that would incite hatred or violence has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years.
    Advocating illegal activity—speech that would encourage others to engage in illegal activity is not afforded any protection.

    Limitations Placed on Speech

    Commercial speech—a specific type of speech afforded First Amendment protections.
    Obscenity—is regulated, and depending on the context, can be prohibited.
    Defamation—publishing a statement that is false, although proffered as fact, that is harmful to the reputation of another person or organization.
    Profanity—different from obscenity, profanity can be regulated if it is integrated into speech that is clearly prohibited.
    Copyright, trademark and patent—regulated by law and giving owners exclusive rights, others are prohibited from speech or expression that infringes on an owner’s rights.

    and yet we fight for dan cathys "freedom of speech" but we wont defend gay marriage which is also a form of freedom of expression.
    (more)
  • twocrows rustex782 2012/08/04 15:13:53
    twocrows
    +1
    well there's a difference between 'society at large' [you, me, other individual people] and the government. the government is not allowed to tell people what they may and may not say. you and I are allowed to do so - - of course, you and I are not in a position to enforce it other than by walking away [boycotting].

    that's the difference, here. the people who are proposing banning CFA are representing our government when they do so. and by making that proposal they are specifically NOT preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States which they swore an oath to do.

    I can agree with their sentiments while simultaneously disagreeing with their actions just as I can agree with your sentiments while disagreeing with your conclusions as to proper action by our government officials.

    as to the idea that 'hatred or violence has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years' - - ummmmmmm - - were you present during the 2008 election process by chance? did you listen to Sarah Palin's and Sharon Engle's speeches? I didn't hear anyone calling them out for their calls for violence at the time.

    so what is different now? the fact that Cathy isn't a member of a government entity?
  • twocrows rustex782 2012/08/04 16:01:41
    twocrows
    just one more - - this from yougov.BrandIndex - - a non-partisan measuring stick for businesses:
    "Chick-Fil-A's perception with fast food eaters nationwide has taken a significant hit in most regions of the US, including the South where most of its restaurants are located, since president and COO Dan Cathy's perceived anti-gay remarks on July 16th.
    "In the Midwest, Chick-Fil-A's perception jumped up for a week and has tapered off to where it was before the interview was published.
    As the controversy has snowballed, the company's overall consumer brand health with fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since at least mid-August 2010."
    http://www.brandindex.com/art...
    ~~~
    in purely practical terms, government bans could backfire. if the big, bad government is perceived as a bully, the trend could reverse while allowing people to simply make up their own minds unfettered by government intervention seems to be making quite a difference.

    sometimes following the Constitution even results in positive outcomes. how 'bout that?
  • rustex782 twocrows 2012/08/04 18:03:57
    rustex782
    so just to be clear. i do not agree with gov banning any business. but christians cant say this is wrong while trying to ban mosques and hold on to the "blue laws" which ban and regulate businesses
  • David H... twocrows 2012/08/05 06:38:56
  • Pele Em... twocrows 2012/08/04 08:45:26
    Pele Emerging
    +1
    You said it so much more lucidly than I did. Boycott is the right way. Use free speech to campaign against the free speech of that idiot.
  • twocrows Pele Em... 2012/08/04 15:16:34
    twocrows
    +1
    I absolutely support the kiss-ins that have been proposed [have any been carried out? I haven't heard]. of course, anyone who participates is taking great physical risk so I can't, in good conscience, urge anyone to attend one.
  • Pele Em... twocrows 2012/08/04 19:21:12
    Pele Emerging
    It's a form of protest which if Chick Fil A reacts negatively, or if any of the customers react negatively, they are the ones who will and should be punished. What I don't support is that total ass who went through the drive through to harangue the 16 year old girl working at her first job. The employees, probably mostly kids or folks who don't have a lot of employment choices, should not be bitched at because the president of the company is such an SOB. The man who had the girl practically in tears from his foul language and personal remarks said he was a 'nice' man. Wrong. Nice men do not take out their frustrations with the higher ups of a company on some poor kid.
  • Bob DiN 2012/08/03 21:13:32
    Hmmmmm VERY Hypocritical
    Bob DiN
    What does this have to do with Chick-Fil-A?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 20:49:49

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals