• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pols Aim To Stop Chick-fil-A Expansion Over Gay Statements

R

RaleighDevil

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
983
Reaction score
51
Location
Raleigh
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A's plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain's top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Ald.Proco "Joe" Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A's effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy's remarks last week that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

"If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy's "bigoted, homophobic comments" in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." ...

Rick Garcia, a longtime Illinois gay rights activist who is a policy adviser to The Civil Rights Agenda group that was working with Moreno and Chick-fil-A on LGBT issues, lauded Moreno's decision.

"I think it's important that the city sends a message that we want business here ... but what we can't have and don't want are businesses that have discriminatory roles," Garcia said, adding that he's a defender of free speech.

Moreno, meanwhile, said it will take "more than words" to get him to reverse course.

"They'd have to do a complete 180," the alderman said. "They'd have to work with LGBT groups in terms of hiring, and there would have to be a public apology from (Cathy)."

http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/

But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.

And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.
 
No it's not "blatant First Amendment violation." Mr. Cathy was not denied his right to speak.

If his company discriminates against certain people, there is reasonable cause to deny him permits.
 
RJ, right on cue to defend the denial of property rights. Your response is so beyond the pale and asinine that it hardly deserves a response. But I will say this: Imagine a bunch of Muslims being denied the right to build a mosque because they support Hamas.
 
Also, not that it makes a damned bit of difference to some, the company is not accused of discriminating. Apparently, RJ and the other enforcers of public morality demand that all subsequent business owners seeking permits be grilled over their approach to certain political subjects. Perhaps we need to find out what permit seekers think about abortion.
 
Terrible idea. Going to turn away a business b/c you don't like the CEO's politics? Give me a break.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-fil-a/260139/

Print | Close

In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A
By Jonathan Merritt
Do we really want a country where people won't do commerce with those who have beliefs different than their own?
When former Republican candidate for president Newt Gingrich visited a Chick-fil-A in Anderson, S.C. this January, supporters gathered outside to catch a glimpse. (Reuters)

Dan Cathy, president of one of America's largest express fast food chains, has been frying more than chicken filets this week. The Chick-fil-A executive infuriated gay and lesbian groups when he again defended his company's anti-gay marriage position in an interview this week with a Christian news outlet.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Not surprisingly, his comments were met with fury by those who support same-sex marriage. The company was labeled a "hate group" by many on Twitter and in the blogosphere, and drew promises of boycotts from notables including The Office star Ed Helms. Meanwhile, Americans who patronize the chain's 1,600 locations were left wondering what to do.

Should they swear off the legendary chicken sandwiches to support gay rights? Or could they eat one of the filets anyway, knowing their dollars would be but a drop in the bucket for a chain that has more than $4 billion in annual sales and donated a pittance to groups they may disagree with?

I'd argue the latter -- and this has nothing to do with my views on gay marriage. It's because Chick-fil-A is a laudable organization on balance, and because I refuse to contribute to the ineffective boycott culture that's springing up across America.

First of all, Chick-fil-A is not a hate group. In a statement released yesterday, company leaders made their commitment to equal service clear, "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

As a native Atlantan, I've dined at the chicken chain more than I'd like to admit over more than two decades and even interacted with its leadership team. I've never witnessed any customer refused service or even treated differently. On the contrary, Chick-fil-A is known for offering world-class customer service to each person that walks through one of the restaurant's doors.

Additionally, the organization gives millions of dollars each year to charitable causes -- and not just to "pro-family" groups. It funds a large foster care program, several schools of a higher learning, and a children's camp. It has provided thousands of scholarships for Chick-fil-A employees to attend college and grow past the service sector where they got their workplace start. (On Friday, the company provided free meals for Aurora, Colo., policemen.)

And the company's leaders claim to do all of this out of convictions rooted in the Christian faith. Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the company should know that it does not hide its commitment to biblical values. Its corporate statement of purpose since 1982 has begun, "To glorify God..."

Given this, that anyone was surprised by Cathy's statements is, well, surprising. Like many conservative Christians, he does not support gay marriage.

I'm flummoxed that so many consumers are so quick these days to call for boycotts of any company that deviates from their personal or political views. For one thing, boycotts rarely cause actual pocketbook - rather than PR -- damage. Most consumers don't care enough to drive an extra mile to get the same product from someone else. And that's especially the case for companies as large as Chick-fil-A, which has prime locations on many college campuses where there is little head-to-head competition.

But my bigger question is this: In a nation that's as divided as ours is, do we really want our commercial lives and our political lives to be so wholly intermeshed? And is this really the kind of culture we want to create? Culture war boycotts cut both ways and are much more likely to meet with success when prosecuted by large groups of people, such as Christian activists, who are more numerous than gays and lesbians and their more activist supporters.

Gay and lesbian groups were famously rankled when pro-family activists reacted against Kraft for posting a photo of an Oreo cookie with rainbow-hued filling last month in honor of Gay Pride Month, and also when similar groups protested JCPenney for announcing lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres would be its next spokesperson.

So should the 45 percent of Americans who oppose gay marriage opt for Chips Ahoy! instead of Oreos? Should they begin shopping at Belk instead of JC Penny? If they did, it wouldn't make any more sense than the endless failed calls for liberal consumers to boycott Urban Outfitters, because its owner is a conservative and Rick Santorum donor, or to not order from Domino's Pizza, because it was founded by a Catholic conservative who helped fund anti-abortion causes.

On both sides of our latest culture war divide, we must learn to have level-headed disagreements without resorting to accusations of hate speech and boycotts. As Josh Ozersky argued on TIME Thursday, "businesses should be judged by their products and their practices, not by their politics."

I agree: I don't care how my dry cleaner votes. I just want to know if he/she can press my Oxfords without burning my sleeves. I find no compelling reason to treat sandwiches differently than shirts.

From a business standpoint, some might say Cathy's comments were imprudent if not downright dumb. But in a society that desperately needs healthy public dialogue, we must resist creating a culture where consumers sort through all their purchases (fast food and otherwise) for an underlying politics not even expressed in the nature of the product itself.

If white meat's not your thing, try the Golden Arches. But if you want a perfectly fried chicken sandwich, Chick-fil-A, will be happy to serve you -- gay or straight. In this case, those who boycott are the ones missing out.

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-fil-a/260139/

Copyright © 2012 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.
 
RaleighDevil said:
RJ, right on cue to defend the denial of property rights. Your response is so beyond the pale and asinine that it hardly deserves a response. But I will say this: Imagine a bunch of Muslims being denied the right to build a mosque because they support Hamas.
Click to expand...


What a crock of shit! Who on this board do you think supports Hamas? I'm looking forward to this answer.

By the way peaceful Muslims in TN, who had been there for over thirty years, had to spend outrageous amounts of money to defend their right to build a house of worship on their own property.

How about the Muslim community center in NYC? RWers claimed the Iman was a radical. The only problem is he was the handpicked choice of both Clinton and W to be the US envoy to work with moderate Muslims throughout the world.

You opposed the community center.
 
Boston's mayor evidently sent a similar letter.

And I really don't care what the brass at Chick Fil A think politically. It is an American company that provides a lot of jobs and Sundays off for its workers an industry where that never happens. If you don't like its view on gay marriage, don't go there. I couldn't tell you the last time I ate there - maybe 6 months or so - in part b/c I'm opposed to its political views.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Terrible idea. Going to turn away a business b/c you don't like the CEO's politics? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

In MA it's legal to have same sex marriages. Do you think Chik-Fil-A will pay insurance for same sex couples like they do for heterosexual couples?
 
RJKarl said:
In MA it's legal to have same sex marriages. Do you think Chik-Fil-A will pay insurance for same sex couples like they do for heterosexual couples?
Click to expand...

I have no idea if they can refuse to provide coverage on that basis, or to what extent it is available in that industry. At least under federal law, they can refuse to hire someone b/c he/she is gay. Which is pretty ridiculous IMO.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Terrible idea. Going to turn away a business b/c you don't like the CEO's politics? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. This guy is a dick, but the government cannot deny him a permit to run his business because the alderman doesn't like his politics.

To my liberal friends: What if he opposed the war and led anti-war rallies, and he was denied by a pro-war alderman? Think about it.
 
WakeandBake said:
I have to agree. This guy is a dick, but the government cannot deny him a permit to run his business because the alderman doesn't like his politics.

To my liberal friends: What if he opposed the war and led anti-war rallies, and he was denied by a pro-war alderman? Think about it.
Click to expand...

Or he was in favor of gay marriage but the alderman was anti-gay marriage.
 
Ball State Deac said:
I have no idea if they can refuse to provide coverage on that basis, or to what extent it is available in that industry. At least under federal law, they can refuse to hire someone b/c he/she is gay. Which is pretty ridiculous IMO.
Click to expand...

But is likely from this company.
 
I 100% agree with the Atlantic article. And as long as the company isn't breaking any laws, there is no way a municipality can deny them a business license for what their owners happen to believe. People can boycott if they want to, but all a boycott does is penalize those business owners who are brave enough to stand up for their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. If a business owner or top executive is a closet racist homophobic asshole who clubs seals in his spare time, but he is clever enough to keep it on the down low, he'll never be boycotted. Plus, it's illogical - am I supposed to send an attitude questionnaire to every company I give money to, directly or indirectly, to make sure they agree with me on all important political and religious issues?
 
Kudos to WakenBake and BSD on this thread!

Or should I say Polynesian Sauce to Wake and BSD
 
RJKarl said:
But is likely from this company.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, unlike some other southern chains (Cracker Barrell/Dennys), CFA has never had an issue on the employment front when it comes discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top