Image of the day

Captured by
Terry Wood

Jupiter (clearer) Nov 5th 2023 w/Mewlon 180c

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Chik-Fil-A vs. Mosques

Started by pbrayton, 08/03/2012 03:40PM
Posted 08/03/2012 03:40PM Opening Post
So, I get the notion that it is absurd and probably illegal for politicians to use their clout and government institutions to prevent commercial establishments from building where they want to, just because they disagree with the viewpoints of the owners. I'm just wondering if there is any difference between that and politicians who use their clout and government institutions to prevent religious establishments from building where they want to, just because they disagree with the viewpoints of the adherents. Is there a difference and if so, why?
Posted 08/03/2012 05:16PM #1
I you referring to all of the liberal politicians that are trying to stop mosques because of islam's vehemently anti-gay, anti-women's rights, and anti-jew stances?

Oh wait, nevermind, there aren't any. Rahm Emmanuel doesn't want to allow Chik-Fil-A's in Chicago, but did allow the Nation of Islam to re-open there new Salaam restaraunt this month.

Salaam "springs from the mission of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam". Minister Louis Farrakhan recently responded to President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage calling him “the first president that sanctioned what the scriptures forbid,” according to a video posted by the Nation of Islam’s “official” news source, Finalcall.com.

How about Boston, where mayor Menino doesn't want Chik-Fil-A? Nope, he donated taxpayer money to support a vehemently anti-homosexual group.

This is the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood, a.k.a. “Menino’s Mosque.

Mayor Menino “sold” $2 million worth of city property to the ISB for $175,000, despite their well-documented links to Muslim extremism. The mosque teaches a form of Islam that condemns homosexuals to death.