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

I asked for one "good" reason. Instead, you provided a lot of assertions and arguments that don't make a lot of sense to me. So I think I need to address what you wrote. Response to your "Thesis" How exactly is Chick-Fil-A's stance "an obstruction to the establishment of justice"? You also said their stance "detriments a minority in the community" Please provide some evidence of how exactly it "detriments" gays for some people to disagree with being gay. To me it seems that millions of Christians hold the exact same stance. Why not, therefore, ban all businesses with Christian ties from opening? What makes Chick-Fil-A any different? Muslims are anti-gay too. In fact, they go much farther than the Christians and proudly execute gays in public. Should we ban Muslims from opening their shops too? After all, they're obstucting justice, right? Why don't we take it one step further and just ban Christians and Muslims outright? If you're going to be consistent in your position, you need to go after all people that don't agree with being gay, not just Chick-Fil-A. Response to Contention 1 I acknowledge that freedom of speech can be limited (by force or threat of force). But who decides when something is a "harm to society" or "inhibits democracy"? You don't bother to provide a definition of either or to identify who evaluates. Also, I doubt you would ever use these phrases in a discussion with someone about offensive speech. 'What you just said inhibits democracy!' Can you imagine? The slippery slope: anyone that disagrees with "government policy" is inhibiting democracy. How do you avoid ending up with thought police? Next you quote (out of context) from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You don't explain what "case" they are discussing but seem to imply that the points made in the quote can be applied to take away freedom of speech from the folks at Chick-Fil-A. The excerpt discusses "equal respect for all citizens", giving "due weight to a variety of values" and argues against "a principle of unregulated speech". Again, who decides when not enough "respect" has been shown or which "values" apply to specific statements? Who is the 'regulator' that 'decides'? I'm going to quit with the rhetorical questions because I already know the answer. The "who" must inevitably be "lawyers" (so-called). You think that "law" folk have the "right" to decide which forms of speech are acceptable and which forms are not. I don't accept this premise. Why should anyone be able to tell anyone else what noises can and cannot come out of their mouth? Where do they get such power? I agree with you that there have to be "reasons behind the argument to allow speech". How about the argument that not 'allowing' speech is oppressive? I'm not relying on the "First Amendment" (so-called) or "Constitution" (to preempt point 1b) for this position. People can write their scribbles on pieces of paper if they want to. You can ascribe whatever meaning you want to them. I just think humans should be allowed to say what they think for the simple reason that we are usually capable of thought and generally have the ability to speak. You're trying to stop something that's natural because your favored group (gays) have had some other people disagree with their choices. Rather than appeal to reason and discuss the issue, you would prefer to take the easier path of restricting their ability to disagree. Response to Contention 2 Ok, the only real point here is "same-sex" marriage. Bringing up "anti-gay organizations", "other gay rights issues" and "negative effects in the gay community" provides nothing of substance for your argument. What specifically are you talking about? How exactly does opposing same-sex marriage "exceed the limitations of free speech"? Response to 2a "Denial of gay rights"... which "rights" (so-called)? Do you mean same-sex marriage? Can you be more specific? Response to 2b I don't agree with violence or discrimination toward gays. I don't think the guys at Chick-Fil-A do either. We don't need to discuss that here. "Rejection by friends and family". Again, should people not be allowed to reject friends or family if they disagree with them? "Discriminatory acts" like what? Which "laws and policies" and what effects do they have? You go on to discuss "health care", "income", "employment status" and 'bullying in school' and how discrimination can affect gays. Is Chick-Fil-A advocating any of these forms of discrimination? I haven't read much about it but I thought they were just opposed to gay marriage. You also wrote about "poor mental health", "unhealthy behaviors" "ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships" and difficulty being "open" with others. Again, has Chick-Fil-A been associated with these things? To me, this seems like you're looking for someone to blame for these problems other than the people that doing them. 'I can't maintain my long-term relationship because I've been discriminated against'. How does that work? At the end you bring up some statistics about higher rates of suicide, depression, use of drugs and risky sexual encounters in some gay populations and the link to "strong rejection from their families". What does this have to do with Chick-Fil-A? How is stopping Chick-Fil-A from opening some businesses going to help families reject their gay children in a way that's less "strong"? I know that was a little pointed but the stats you're providing are of no relevance to the discussion. I usually try to go out of my way to agree when someone makes a good point. I find that this keeps the debate more friendly. I have not changed this strategy. I just could not find much to agree with in what you wrote. I encourage you to get more clear and specific about what it is that you're trying to say. The generalizations sound good but don't hold up. For example, 'In modern society, those that would seek to deny equal rights to minority groups, such as homosexuals, present a grave danger'. There's nothing of substance. My Arguments 1) We should seek to protect speech that is unpopular. Popular speech doesn't need protection because people like it. The essence of freedom is being able to say what you think, regardless of how many people disagree with you or want to kick you out of "the community" because they don't like what you say. The people at Chick-Fil-A are only presenting us with an opportunity to support their freedom. 2) You mentioned "second-class citizens" in your argument and provided the definition: "a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society". I have to take a moment to remind you that life isn't fair. People have disagreed with being gay for thousands of years and will probably continue to do so until our species goes extinct. We're going to have class and caste. You can't "regulate" it away. If it does change, it's going to be because we all come together (extremely improbable) not because someone wrote a "law" somewhere. 3) What this whole thing really comes down to is that you don't think people should be 'allowed' to be free. An owner of a business should not be allowed to publicly oppose gay marriage at the pain of having his stores banned. Your position places you in opposition to freedom. You can try to justify it with terms, phrases and quotes but in the end you want to take away someone else's ability to say what they think because you don't like what they have to say. I think that's a position of weakness. If you don't like what they say or who they donate to, don't eat there. Easy. By the way, I also thought I'd mention that I have gay friends, support gay marriage, disagree with discrimination, don't eat Chick-Fil-A or agree with their position and think that a lot of hardcore Christians are deluded. We're only in disagreement about the freedom to disagree without retaliation. Maybe that will simplify things.