How many times have you witnessed us waning on the side of caution when matters pursuant to freedom of speech start getting batted around like a the October Classic in baseball. And in this situation it only gets worse.
Perhaps Rahm Emanuel took his duties as the President’s Chief-of-Staff and really started believing that he was in the know – or in fact believed he was making a difference in his friend’s business of wreaking the entire United States. Bexause in the right scope of things he’s doing the exact same thing to Chicago.
Ladies and gentlemen we are here to offer our little rebuttal of the abuses of the First Amendment. Sure it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” That of course is the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. There is also the Freedom of Speech and of the Press that says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, here’s our little, yet extremely important treatise when it comes down to people talking.
It should be remembered quite well that the entire way in which the Amendment is construed is a two-way street. Therefore, let’s each one of us critically think with copious amounts of dedicated reflection before our mouths become unseasoned as it were, lacking both consistency and old fashioned manners. Both Chicago and Boston are deciding to boycott new franchises – of new businesses in their cities – and for what? Because of what a person said? He has the freedom to do that! Or perhaps both of these wing nuts are taking their cues from the White House itself.
Chick-fil-A President, Dan Cathy’s, recent comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman has led to calls by gay rights advocates to boycott the chain. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have recently promised to stop further expansion of the restaurants in their cities. Emanuel weighed in after Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location because of Cathy’s remarks.
Legal experts said the cities’ push to stop Chick-fil-A doesn’t stand a chance because barring Chick-fil-A over the personal views of its owner is an “open and shut” discrimination case, Fox News reported.
We find it extremely interesting that blurb about an “open and shut” discrimination case. This is precisely where Barack Obama has run into more trouble than he’s worth. We believe that Fox News is maintaining their position that the owner of Chick-fil-A was merely stating an interpretation of what the Bible has already said. It would be appropriate for one to assume that the legal experts at Fox News were implying that the minute that either Chicago and/or Boston are prepared to bring evil to a man for speaking his mind is not only a crime against his First Amendment guarantee; but also it would pare off the polarization and literally bring faction versus faction.
Moreover at issue here is more of a prosecutorial matter against the words a human being used to simply state an opinion – something that both people and the media – have a right to do within reason.
Yet there does seem to be more involved than that of “Biblical definition.” Several of our cohorts are asserting plain and simple foul play by these mayors of Chicago and Boston. Furthermore, they seem to be inciting the choir as it is; what we’re trying to establish is the notion that if something – Anything – that doesn’t serve the liberal agenda or wondering why this or that faction is crying “boycott! and foul play…” certainly gives rise to the notion of whether or not those involved with them are as committed as they would want anyone to know, or otherwise.
“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”
Lastly if on the other side of the road, as it were, if a person or group of people merely stated something — along the lines of which these gay rights advocates have initiated — and fired the first shot do they even think about the ramifications that might, and we mean might, could come to bear on them? And yes! We are suggesting that the extremist liberal right is more than used too receiving “Special Rights” that without reason or otherwise serve to advance their agenda.