Resolved: Cities should deny Chick-Fil-A from expanding their franchise into their perimeter.

[PRO Case]Contention 1: My opponent argues against this contention with no real sense of organization, so I will structure my rebuttal with the hopes that I can hit every single one of his points in a presentable manner. Who decides? I never meant to imply that some sort of authority (other than perhaps the government in some circumstances, such as when the Supreme Court must make rulings on cases of individual liberty) determines what is or isn't an obstruction to democracy. The only point that I was making is that if such an obstruction to democracy exists (and the source I cited relatively explains the conditions at which free speech can come in conflict with the principles of democracy), the inhibition to the freedom of speech is justified in that sense. If anything, this debate puts us in a hypothetical scenario and world where the principles of free speech and liberty are in question, and my opponent and I are the interpreters of this scenario. In my C2, I explain why Chick-Fil-A's speech exceeds the limitations of the right thereof based on the principles that I have outlined. This debate is like a courtroom where my opponent and I are attorneys, and using my gathered evidence, I provide my interpretation and argument as to why Chick-Fil-A abuses its right to freedom of speech. I am providing all due respect to both sides of the values in this debate, but as I've explained, the values that represent my opponent's defense are detrimental to a minority and undermine principles of justice for all people. Where do they get such power? For the sake of being able to respond to the argument, let's say there is indeed an authority that overlooks the limitations of free speech if my opponent indeed wants to look at a real-life scenario. My opponent himself has stated that there are limitations to free speech. If this is so, some authority must exist in order to ensure that people do not abuse their right to free speech. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point to limitations because there is no one to enforce the limitations. The government, as I would argue, is endowed with the responsibility to protect the foundations of the country and the rights of the people therein, and as I've shown, Chick-Fil-A provides a form of speech that compromises the nature of democracy. Hence, it is the duty of the authorizing body that would overlook the limitations of free speech to cease the threat. Reasons for Speech: By saying that he doesn't look toward the Constitution nor any document or warrant in order to validate his beliefs, he's shown us one thing: his argument is unfounded. My opponent seems to be having fun with the rhetorical questions, so I will provide one with my own: How do you prevent oppression of words when the words used are inherently oppressive? My opponent's misunderstanding comes in by his narrow perspective of what entails "speech." Expression is considered part of the umbrella of freedom of speech, and while Chick-Fil-A has every right to disagree, the expression of funding organizations that actively lobby and work toward diminishing rights of gay people destroys the rights of a minority and also oppresses others. I leave with another rhetorical question: should the rights of someone be inhibited when the certain someone is using them to destroy the rights of another? Contention 2: While same-sex marriage is what Chick-Fil-A has openly stated they're against, they're donating money to organizations whose work doesn't stop at same-sex marriage. Opposing same-sex marriage by itself doesn't exceed limitations, but by expressing the opposition by providing money to organizations actively working toward diminishing gay rights, this provides a compromising threat to the establishment of gay rights.Sub-point 2a: When I say gay rights, I'm using general terms. Gay rights is a wide terminology that includes same-sex marriage, but also gays in the military, gay adoption, gay employment, etc. Sub-point 2b: I also don't think that Chick-Fil-A endorses harms of any sort against gay people (hopefully), although I would argue that their basis of denial for gay marriage is discriminatory and uses religion in order to provide a false justification. What my sources in this sub-point explain is that these negative results stem from the perpetuation of an ideology that brings destructive consequences--an ideology that Chick-Fil-A helps to pass around with its support of anti-gay organizations. As my Constitutional case explains, such speech exceed limitations of the rights thereof because it causes imminent harm. Thesis: My second contention goes into depth as to why Chick-Fil-A's actions provide an obstruction to justice. Not only is Chick-Fil-A creating support for organizations that work toward laws that create second-class citizens, but the ideology they help permutate physically and psychologically destroys the gay community. Contention 2 provides all the answers. Everything else about banning Christians and whatnot are really just red herrings irrelevant to the scope of this debate because we're talking about Chick-Fil-A specifically.[CON Case]1: My opponent states this in his first point, but earlier in the argument of my case said in his own words believes in limitations of free speech, and such limitations would include speech that is not popular based on their nature. If there's anyone being vague in this debate at all, it's my opponent for not providing any sort of threshold as to where those limitations begin, unlike me, as I've explained through my own evidence from the interpretation of the American Constitution and the philosophy of the freedom of speech. 2: This argument is akin to saying that we shouldn't make a cure for cancer because cancer is always going to exist. My opponent contradicts his earlier statements. He says that gay people should not be discriminated nor committed violence against, but then implies that gay people are just considered to be second-class citizens and there's nothing we can do about it. At the point where government agrees that they're just second-class citizens, as Chick-Fil-A is attempting to do, we truly have reached a level of oppression that my opponent stands so vehemently against. In the face of so many problems with the gay community and inequality committed by the society, my opponent implies that we should just do nothing. 3: Again, it's one thing to be able to say what you think and another to provide money so that others can't be able to do what they think (or in the case of gay people, do what they're attracted to). As my opponent agreed, there is a limitation to freedom of speech, and my argument isn't that Chick-Fil-A shouldn't have the freedom of speech, but that their actions exceed the limitations. It's evident my opponent completely misunderstands my case.[Conclusion]This probably seemed to be a lackluster rebuttal, but then again, the rebuttal that my opponent provided was more of a questionnaire filled with personal positions with no warrants rather than a rebuttal that knocked down anything I said. His questions seemed like things I've already answered when I wrote the case.