if Rahm has the right to block a restaurant from being built...

[scheming daemons]

... Because of the viewpoints of its CEO, then

Bloomberg has the right to stop the construction of a mosque in NYC.


Get it now? The ACLU is right. You cannot use government apparatus to punish someone for their thoughts. Just can't.


Protest, scream, call out Mr. Cathy all you want. That is the proper response.

But GOVERNMENT can't take punitive action against him, and blocking the construction of one of his restaurants in Chicago is punitive.

Rahm fucked up. He is wrong to try to use his power to punish someone's speech. No matter how bigoted an asshole the speaker is.

Open up this can of worms and some redneck mayor in Mississippi can justifiably block the construction of a restaurant because of the owner's pro-LGBT stances.

People are allowed to THINK whatever they want, and government cannot punish them for it. Only actions are "actionable". As long as Mr. Cathy does not discriminate in hiring or serving, govt can't, and should NOT be able to, touch him.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. this is an unpopular use of logic

expect it to be locked...

sP

onEdit : well, not locked but many hairs will be torn out and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth...

[DURHAM D]

97. It is not logic. The thread title is a lie.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

136. how so? n/t

[Zalatix]

188. It sure is. Which means the ACLU is illogical, too.

Either that, or you are being illogical.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713

ACLU Backs Chick-fil-A Against Rahm Emanuel's Threatened Ban


Chicago and Boston might want to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities but that doesn’t mean they have the right to do so, according to the ACLU.

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.

[Whisp]

2. thanks for pointing that out

now I'm a bit confusled but that's good, you brought up an important distinction here.

I see what you mean - people in government should have no right to do that. It's the people boycotting Chik-Assholie-A that should be doing this on their own, and I wish them all the power to make that sick pucka pucka hurt in his wallet.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. Are we talking about speech or employment practices?

That is an important distinction to make, since the government does exercise influence over equal opportunity employment.

The question is genuine, because I've paid little attention to the controversy and don't have a concise understanding of the underlying issues.

[brooklynite]

18. There has been no suggestion that any of their employment practices are discriminatory...

...or for that matter that Chick-Fil-A AS A COMPANY espouses a policy of discimination. This is just the stated personal opinion of the owner.

[girl gone mad]

144. Actually, the article which a poster below has spammed to this thread..

seems to indicate that this is precisely the Chicago Alderman's concern.

I guess we could debate whether or not giving money to hate groups whose explicit goal is to eliminate rights for an entire class of Americans qualifies as a discriminatory practice. It's tough for Chick-Fil-A to claim that they are an equal opportunity employer on the one hand while they are shoveling money to groups who endorse the murder of gays with the other hand.

[Yeah Its Spin]

4. Town I live in blocked a tattoo parlor,

claiming it would bring in crime.

[sharp_stick]

7. Did they block it with zoning?

That's a common way for towns to try to control who gets to set up shop. If it was something else I'd be interested in seeing what legal mechanism/loophole they used.

[Yeah Its Spin]

14. yeah they used zoning

Looks like someone else did get around zoning and then the park board came up with a new dress code for the swimming pool banning open tattoos

http://qctimes.com/news/local/15a9baee-6b35-11e1-b694-001871e3ce6c.html

[rocktivity]

23. A tattoo parlor that wanted to open in Hoboken NJ about 20 years ago

Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2019, 05:33 PM - Edit history (3)

was put through the same thing. The powers that be claimed "sanitation issues"; the parlor pointed out that Hoboken's barber shops and manicure salons were operating safely in spite of them. The real "issue" was that the area was just beginning to gentrify, and perish forbid that the yuppies priced out of New York City should have to mix with biker and rock star types.

P.S. The parlor is It's STILL there, LOL!




rocktivity

[Confusious]

86. Not that I really care one way or other

But barber shops and salons don't generally draw blood, as a practice.

A tattoo shop, if the needles aren't cleaned properly, can spread disease.

[rocktivity]

158. Medical and dental offices would have been better examples, then

Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2019, 05:34 PM - Edit history (5)

If their equipment isn't cleaned properly, they can spread disease, too. But a judge allowed them to open because there are such things as regulations, licensing, and health department inspections -- standards which the tattoo parlor offered to meet.


rocktivity

[4th law of robotics]

56. Because it was a tattoo parlor or because they didn't like the owner?

One is ok legally (although I wouldn't personally agree) the other is unconstitutional.

[Speck Tater]

5. Absolutely correct.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. It would be hypocritical to expect it only to work in our favor.

[Butterbean]

156. ITA and bravo to the OP.

[mysuzuki2]

6. you're right 100%

[Lucy Goosey]

8. I agree completely

I think Dan Cathy is gross. I will never eat in a Chik-fil-A, and I understand why decent people want to block the restaurants.

In this situation, though, one has to look at it from the other side - if you're not OK with a business being blocked for pro-LGBT views, then you shouldn't be OK with the opposite.

[Raster]

9. I agree. As distasteful as I find Cathy's bigoted stance....

....he has the right to take that stance.

Rahm did fuck up.

[DURHAM D]

85. No Rahm didn't - he did not say what the OP indicates

This thread is gay bashing disguised as a free speech "concern".

[former9thward]

145. Rahm is supporting the Alderman who is blocking the store.

"Chicago Politician Will Ban Chick-fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Comments"

A Chicago politician said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward, following anti-gay marriage remarks by the fast food chain's president. In Chicago, residents in Moreno's ward have expressed mixed opinions that the fast food restaurant won't be coming to their neighborhood. Moreno does have the support of Mayor Rahm Emmanuel.

"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty," Emmanuel said in a statement to the Chicago Tribune.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-blocked-opening-chicago-store/story?id=16853890#.UBsN66DST5k

[progress2k12nbynd]

174. Spend less time searching for trolls and more time thinking. nt

[sadbear]

10. Have we totally bought into the idea that money is speech?

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. K&R and well said like a motherfucker nt

[pepperbear]

12. and the turn-about is:

because the government doesn't really have that power, no one is actually violating Cathy or his corporation's constitutional right to free speech by decrying his position, calling for boycotts, etc..., which means the whole "punished for speaking out" argument coming from the Tea Party types is fallacious at best and dangerously misguided at worst.

[berni_mccoy]

13. I agree. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still doing the wrong thing.

The road to hell and all that...

[Raster]

25. The road to hell and all that...

[Son of Gob]

49. What did he do wrong?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Well --

at least we can get 1 infrastructure project moving.

[AlinPA]

15. Has the restaurant actually been blocked from being built? i didn't hear that it had been.

[hack89]

16. In Chicago there is an alderman who has says he has power and plans to use it.

Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for a Wal-Mart in his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and that Wal-Mart was not "a perfect fit for the area."

Chick-fil-A already has obtained zoning for a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue, but it must seek council approval to divide the land so it can purchase an out lot near Home Depot, Moreno said.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-25/news/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725_1_1st-ward-gay-marriage-ward-alderman

[AlinPA]

17. Thanks!

[The Magistrate]

44. His Ward, His Rules, Sir

We got fifty just like him, too....

[hack89]

95. I understand that elected officials are above the law

it is Chicago after all.

[Son of Gob]

100. Yep, we all know Right Wingers hate Chicago.

[hack89]

135. Of course they do - Chicago gave America President Obama

and they can never forget that. That's why it is one of of my favorite cities - that and the pizza.

[The Magistrate]

187. Bit Lead-Footed For Sarcasm, Sir

Aldermen do have a good deal to say about matters in their wards, and with the approval of the alderman, not much will go through, though it may be hard to a finger to exactly why it does not.

The Alderman of the 1st Ward is, traditionally, the Outfit's representative on the City Council....

[hack89]

191. I know.

I find politicians very frustrating. I live in a state famous for political corruption and patronage. Because we are so small you can't help but see it up front and personal. Very seldom do politicians wield such discretionary power to the betterment of all - it usually brings out the cynic in me. Therefore, while understanding the reality of political power and politicians, I tend to look at politicians with a jaundiced eye.

[progress2k12nbynd]

175. Excellent point, Sir. Thanks for bringing it up, Sir.

Have a good evening Sir.

[JDPriestly]

79. The city can impose zoning restrictions and force the restaurant to open in

another location. They probably won't prevent the restaurant from opening. But they could limit where they can open.

This is not a speech issue. Happens all the time. I went to a zoning hearing and persuaded the committee that a permit to divide a lot into three parcels should not be permitted. Anyone can do that.

You can't discriminate based on the content of speech, but cities do.

[hack89]

94. Retroactively changing zoning laws just to keep a specific company out?

can you spell lawsuit?

Now if they were to ban all fast food joints, that would be ok. But to single a single company is abuse of the law.

[stevenleser]

154. Happened a lot here in NYC with adult businesses

Let me know if you need links or citations, but I think this is pretty universally known.

[hack89]

159. ALL adult entertainment business correct?

not just one specific business?

You do appreciate the difference between banning ALL fast food places and ONLY banning Chic Fil A?

[stevenleser]

179. No, I don't, because that is not the situation.

It would be easy to craft zoning laws that require businesses and their officers be completely supportive of the principles of equal rights for all Americans regardless of ... And list all diversity class descriptions like race, color, creed, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc

[hack89]

181. And it would be equally easy to craft zoning laws to conform to traditional "Christian values"

so what is your point?

You are swinging a dual edge sword there - that is why it is not as straightforward as you think.

[stevenleser]

198. No, it wouldn't. The 14th amendment would be the impediment to that. nt

[hack89]

209. And your proposal would violate the 1st amendment

you can hold Chik Fil A responsible for obeying all federal and state civil right and employment laws.

You cannot punish them for saying they do not agree with those laws. You cannot punish them for working to change those laws.

[Jim Lane]

183. Your suggested ordinance would be a clear First Amendment violation.

The requirement that the business be "completely supportive" of certain opinions goes far beyond saying that, if anti-gay discrimination in employment is illegal, then businesses must conform their conduct to the law. The logical interpretation of "completely supportive" (especially in the context of the Chik-fil-A ruckus) is that it's not enough for the business to abide by all EEO statutes, ordinances, and regulations in its employment practices. Beyond that, the business's top executives must not express opinions that are critical of certain principles deemed (by someone or other) to be beyond criticism, and the business must not contribute money to organizations that peacefully advocate for the disfavored points of view.

It would not be inconsistent for a business owner to say, "I will comply with this law as long as it's in effect but I think it's a bad law and should be repealed."

Of course, the actual case involves criticism of marriage equality, not employment rights, so the connection to conduct is even more tenuous.

As has been pointed out numerous times on DU, it's often valuable to turn something like this around. What if the City Council in a Tea Party hotbed decides to "craft zoning laws that require businesses and their officers be completely supportive of the principles" of traditional American values, as interpreted by the ordinance-writers -- limiting marriage to people of opposite sex, allowing corporate polluters free rein, engaging in imperialistic military actions abroad, etc. When two stores of a similar type (sporting goods or whatever) seek to open in the central business district, the one whose owner is himself a Tea Party stalwart is allowed to open, but the one whose owner is found to have donated to DU or to have spoken publicly in favor of the Affordable Care Act is deemed "not a good fit" for that city and is denied the right to open. That, too, would be a clear First Amendment violation.

The only difference between the two cases is that different people have different lists of principles that they'd like to see businesses support.

[stevenleser]

197. Not completely correct. At worst, it would be a conflict between the 1st and 14th amendments.

With the commerce clause coming in on the side of the 14th amendment. Appellate courts handle conflicts like that all the time. That is something an appellate court or the SCOTUS could easily rule as Constitutional.

[Jim Lane]

200. I completely disagree.

The Supreme Court has held that commercial speech, being outside the core concern of the First Amendment, is entitled to less protection (but still some protection). The government can prohibit Chick-fil-A from advertising that its chicken cures cancer. That doesn't apply to political speech (such as denunciation of marriage equality) by a commercial entity.

The government may also impose general, content-neutral rules that incidentally burden free speech, such as taxing newspapers. That doesn't mean, however, that the government could set the tax rate as 35% for papers that endorsed McCain and 50% for papers that endorsed Obama. Nor, to use your example, could the tax rate be different depending on whether the paper supported a particular set of political views.

You don't comment on my specific example -- a wingnut parallel to your ordinance, one that would use zoning to discriminate against a business whose leaders made progressive statements about public policy issues. (I don't mean to single you out here. In all these Chick-fil-A threads, the proponents or defenders of government retaliation against Chick-fil-A have generally been loath to comment on examples that apply their arguments to the other side.) Could a right-wing City Council craft a zoning ordinance that would exclude businesses whose principals had publicly endorsed marriage equality, or who had contributed money to the Sierra Club or the ACLU? My answer is that there's not a federal appellate judge in the country who would uphold that ordinance -- not under the Commerce Clause or zoning power or anything else.

From your post #198, I gather that you'd rely on the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably the Equal Protection Clause. That clause applies only to government action, not to private comments about government action. I think you're saying that the government may discriminate against people who express opinions about the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment if you disagree with those opinions, but may not discriminate against the people who agree with you. That won't fly. Someone who says "I don't think that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage" -- or, for that matter, someone who says "I think the Fourteenth Amendment should be repealed" -- is engaged in protected speech, and the government may not retaliate against the speaker based on disagreement with the ideas expressed.

[JDPriestly]

182. Unless the company is asking for a change in the zoning laws and that

is often the case. Also, the company has to get building permits and will probably want certain tax deals that don't have to be given.

There can be no discrimination based on the exercise of free speech -- but then look how they have treated people in the Occupy movement even when they aren't camping out in tents.

[Son of Gob]

50. No

Nor did Rahm threaten to. Bullshit RW spin is all this nontroversy is.

[Deep13]

91. Nope, just constitutionally protected opinions. nt

[brooklynite]

19. I will demand that Government protect the rights of those I disagree with...

...to the extent that I expect them to also protect mine.

[GoCubsGo]

20. The "mosque" WAS blocked, IIRC.

The ironic thing about that is that it was blocked due to a massive campaign of lies by the very crowd that is throwing a tantrum over Rahm's grandstanding.

[Nye Bevan]

38. No. It opened.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039290/Controversial-Ground-Zero-mosque-site-opens-just-weeks-9-11-anniversary.html

[Wait Wut]

21. I hate to agree with you...

...but, I thought the same thing last nite.

Be careful what you wish for, someone else will take advantage of your good fortune.

What Mayor Emmanual should have done is cleared the way for them to set up shop and then made it simple for an LGBT club to open up right next door.

[Son of Gob]

52. What is it you actually think he did?

What's with people swallowing the RW bullshit spin on this issue?

[MNBrewer]

62. He did nothing

People are trying to hold Democratic mayors to a "higher standard", but nothing has actually happened. All these mayors have done is to use their first amendment rights to express their own feelings about CFA. Such huffing and puffing over something that didn't really happen!

[DURHAM D]

71. And on "Democratic" Underground.

go figure...

[Son of Gob]

77. I know that

I just wanted to know what that poster thought Rahm did. His post made it seem like he thought Rahm had done something about this matter.

Your post is 100% correct, I especially liked this line.

Such huffing and puffing over something that didn't really happen!

[Wait Wut]

98. Not what he 'did', what he 'said'.

Maybe you should back up a bit.

I can't access that actual quote, but he basically said Chicago didn't need a business that would discriminate. I agree with him 100%, but to wish that he 'could' block a business from opening is dangerous.

There was no RW bullshit spin on my part. Maybe you should tape your knees to the chair so you don't knock yourself out.

[Son of Gob]

105. He didn't say any such thing

Maybe you should stop buying into RW bullshit spin.

Here's the quote

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14102489-418/rahm-emanuel-no-regrets-on-my-chick-fil-a-comments.html


No where does he say he's going to block or wish he could block a business. That is the RW spin which you've swallowed hook, line and sinker. Now as the Fonz would say, Sit on it.

[Nye Bevan]

112. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[Son of Gob]

124. SPAMbot

[Nye Bevan]

128. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[Son of Gob]

130. Kewl, more Spam! My favorite.

Dan Cathy appreciates your spamming.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

137. you can't refute it so it's spam...interesting n/t

[girl gone mad]

139. No, it's spam because s/he's posted it about 50 times in this thread.

The very definition of spam.

[Nye Bevan]

142. Not my fault that there's so much ignorance in this thread (nt)

[girl gone mad]

147. Yeah, it kind of is.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

148. ok...well, how about someone refuting it once?

it is a quote of a chicago alderman...who controls the goings on in the ward. everyone keeps saying 'where is gov't saying they will do this' (in SEVERAL threads on this board) and when someone posts a quote...it's like it's not even there.

sP

[girl gone mad]

152. The thread stated Mayor Emanual was abusing his power.

The article spammed to the thread claiming to verify this abuse of power details no such abuse of power.

The alderman in question is asking Chick-Fil-A to demonstrate their commitment to providing equal opportunity employment before approving a permit. The alderman's requests are based on Chick-Fil-A's practice of funding pro-discrimination activist groups which essentially creates an unfriendly workplace for anyone who supports equal rights.

[Wait Wut]

153. Frustrating, isn't it?

Even more annoying is that 'we' are all arguing on the same side of the damned fence and have forgotten why.

I'm going home and not thinking for the rest of the nite.

[MNBrewer]

204. HAS it been denied?

Saying you'll do something is one thing, doing it is another. Stop acting like CFA has been harmed. It has not.

[Son of Gob]

151. It's spam because he's copy and pasted the same message

a dozen times in this thread. Interesting that you leap to the aid of a spammer.

[Wait Wut]

113. "Now as the Fonz would say, Sit on it." Really?

"Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values....And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values."

You can swallow whatever you want, but that sounds to me like Mayor Emmanuel would love to block this asshole. Thanks for looking up one of the quotes for me, tiger. Glad to know you're up on all the RW lingo and spin, too.

[Son of Gob]

122. Keep spinning, sport.

Is it heavy carrying all that water for the RW?

[Wait Wut]

127. That would be 'sportess'.

Your insinuation is noted. Keep it up.

[Son of Gob]

131. Keep digging sportess.

[truedelphi]

150. I like the way you think. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

22. +1 Strongly agree.

America doesn't stand for the kind of bigotry that Chick-Fil-A represents, but it does stand for the free expression of ideas and while that umbrella covers lots of good things, it also covers some unpopular and odious things too. And that's just fine.

PB

[mitchtv]

24. It seems wrong to have Govt refuse them.

boycott the shit out of them, have lots of actions,misbehave, and if you find a code to fuck them with, go for it,mayors should keep out of it

[Comrade_McKenzie]

26. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Corporations have no rights.

[Nye Bevan]

36. So if the police raided the corporate HQ of DemocraticUnderground LLC for no reason,

and confiscated the assets of DemocraticUnderground LLC without paying any compensation, shutting down the entire site in the process, I guess that's fine, because "corporations have no rights".

[frylock]

65. i guess that might be applicable if dick-fil-a were having thier assets seized..

smells more like analogy fail to me tho.

[Nye Bevan]

70. Not an analogy. A response to "corporations have no rights" (nt)

[niceguy]

192. But the franchisee

Who wants to open the restaurant does....

[w4rma]

27. Even when Rahm seemingly tries to do the right thing, he is wrong. (nt)

[Son of Gob]

89. Wrong about what?

[Nye Bevan]

140. Wrong about expressing support for Alderman Proco Moreno's vow

to deny Chik-fil-A a permit.

[girl gone mad]

202. So Rahm doesn't get the right to free speech?

[nanabugg]

28. what is wrong with America!!! If a teabagger wants open a restaurant, as long as he doesn't

discriminate against any of the public, it's ok by me. How can you stop a person from making a living because of his "thoughts?" Besides, this action is taking away jobs that are needed in most places. This is going to cost the Dems in November because folks who decided to sit out will be out in droves to stop this kind of action, me included, and I am a flaming liberal!!! Dems just have to find a way to lose every time.

[nanabugg]

29. The President needs to quickly come out and make a statement about this.

I'm thinking Rahm is trying to find a way to help Obama lose!!

[DonCoquixote]

32. and if Obama speaks out for chick fila

The LGBT will scream at him.

[joeybee12]

39. Oh, nice blanket bigoted statement.

[DonCoquixote]

184. You know it is true.

If he dares speak against the idea that gov should ban chik fil a, he will be pilloried.

[zeemike]

110. That's the next step...get Obama involved in this...

I expect the question at the next news conference...and no matter what he says it will be used to wedge the issue further.

[Fumesucker]

30. I agree with you..

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Rahm says bullshit all the time, and no one has blocked any chicken store from opening.

Rahm said something stupid. That's all that happened. The rest is some fantasia. No one blocked a store.
Let us know when you have something that actually happened to complain about. The right wing also says religious freedom died yesterday, they complain about many things that did not happen this is just another instance. Why join them?
No one has had their rights denied expect for every GLBT person in the United States. The real complaint about actual events is ours, not yours nor Mr Cathy's.

[MNBrewer]

66. Hear, hear!

People act as though the statements of these officials carry the weight of law and were enforceable. It's just First Amendment rights on their part, folks, that's all.

[Redford]

34. It's almost like they are forgetting we have an election in November.

The last thing we need is the sleeping tea party awake and pissed off. There are plenty of ways to support the LBGT without calling the Christians names. Don't like their viewpoint, don't eat the fucking sandwich.

[littlewolf]

35. I talked with about a dozen people

last night coming out of CFA and half said it was a free speech
issue with them ... because of the Mayor in MA and Rahm ...
they had issues with Cathy's statement but thought
it more important to support free speech ...

[MattBaggins]

42. Did you ask them about actions?

If they are found to be in violation of fair employment practices?

The fact that they ave support to the Kill the Gays laws in Uganda?

[littlewolf]

173. nope we were in a mall ....

and I just asked why they were in line ..

[frylock]

67. sounds like bullshit to me

[joeybee12]

37. Please show me EXACTLY what Rahm said...

Did he just say they are not welcome or that he would block them...seems to me people are reading into what Rahm actually said and interpreting that as what he would do.

[DURHAM D]

45. I am with you. What exactly did he say?

[Son of Gob]

46. Here's what he said.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

That caused Right Wing assholes to lose their shit. Of course with that comes certain people on the left who swallow and repeat their bullshit narrative, e.g. this thread.

“The Mayor simply said that Chick-fil-a’s CEO does not share Chicago’s values. He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here,” mayoral press secretary Tarrah Cooper said the following day. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but he does not believe the CEO’s values are reflective of our city.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14102489-418/rahm-emanuel-no-regrets-on-my-chick-fil-a-comments.html

[MattBaggins]

40. For the 11th million time

it is about their ACTIONS not viewpoints.

They have multiple lawsuits against them for discrimination and they actively fund hate groups.

I believe they should be allowed to build if it is found that they have not engaged in unlawful employment practices but they are not the squeaky clean martyrs they pretend to be.

[COLGATE4]

64. That's just a pretext. Most major corporations

have a bunch of lawsuits against them at any given time for any number of things, not the least of which is discrimination. And they have every right to fund what you deem to be 'hate groups'. It IS pure viewpoint discrimination and as such is unconstitutional.

[Bonhomme Richard]

41. I agree that politicians getting involved only hurts the cause. n/t

[Son of Gob]

43. What a dumb thing to whine about.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. How many threads does the 'blame the gays if we lose' advance team need?

No one has blocked anyone from opening anything. And yet this goes on and on. The only people being discriminated against by the government in this discussion are gay people. The rest is a fantasy from the right wing, which also announced that religious freedom died this week.

[girl gone mad]

59. I think you've got their number.

The ACLU is suddenly popular with the 'fall in line' crowd.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. They are so easy to spot as it is cyclical and also repetitive...

that crowd has a few players still unable to operate in gay areas so I'm sure they are strained for good typists.

[randome]

48. I still see it as appropriate.

When a public head of a public corporation uses his power and position to publicly advocate against the American ideal of inclusiveness, I think it is appropriate to deny that corporation to operate.

Under those conditions only. Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness.

We have gotten too accustomed to corporate CEOs using their wealth to try and blockade the American ideal of inclusiveness.

This has NOTHING to do with Cathy's personal viewpoints or thoughts. But when he is wearing the hat of a public CEO, his comments are fair game for reprisals.

IMO.

[TheKentuckian]

186. Private citizens can, should, and must take Chick-Fil-A to task

All legal citizen action is in order but reprisals from the government are wildly inappropriate and insane precedent, at very best.

There is no test of inclusiveness of speech in the law and as such your imaginary picket fence will prove to be without substance.

Government is a poor and rather ugly tool to dictate personal behavior, there is no reason to even begin to think it will work better or even equally to control speech and thought.

Even if the phantom wall could be whipped into existence, if a person with access to thousands of years of history and enough education to find information and put thought into it should get that any mucking around is higher downside than benefit.

I also think such power is fundamentally philosophically unsound in the preservation and advancement of a free people.

Why the hell would a free person wish to grant the government authority to deny economic access based on ANY opinion, political affiliation, or contribution to a legally operating entity (whether you agree they should be or not)?

What in the world is there to be gained to risk what should be the obvious potential downsides?
I don't mean this in an attacking way but it really doesn't seem like a rational train of thought. Your are favoring power that flat out should not exist because there are about zero indications that people can reasonably exercise such authority on a consistent enough level to set any such precedent.

I think this is a radical line of thought. Boycott and protest by all means, by stock in more favorable competitors, contribute to the legal funds of those in litigation with them on relate matters, write bad internet reviews, be toxic in your word of mouth, have sit ins, fill the joints with beautiful pride and love but the power in the hands of government is a piss poor idea, fiscal banishment for thought crimes/offensive speech.

[randome]

196. 'Personal behavior' is not what I'm talking about.

I was talking about the public face of a corporation. We all wear many hats each day. Parent, employee, spouse. When someone is giving a public interview using their corporate prestige to advocate for exclusiveness, I think it is entirely permissible for government to say, 'Not here.'

That has NOTHING to do with his personal expressions or beliefs. He needs to put on a different hat for that kind of speech.

The Ku Klux Klan in many municipalities is prevented from adopting stretches of highway and other things that we feel would be inappropriate.

How is it different to tell a corporation it is not welcome if that corporation is making public -not private or personal- statements advocating for exclusiveness?

[DURHAM D]

51. Looks like you have created a false narrative of the matter

so you can push an anti-gay agenda disguised as a free speech "concern".

[Son of Gob]

63. He didn't create it

But he certainly dove into this bullshit narrative head first along with many others in this thread. Possible hit and run as well.

[DURHAM D]

68. I noticed that it is a drive by.

I am surprised that supposedly good Dems are buying into this setup instead of correcting the bullshit "fact" situation.

[Son of Gob]

84. Pretty frustrating when people buy into bullshit like this

A simple fucking google search and you'll find what Rahm actually said.

[scheming daemons]

117. no thread of mine is ever a drive by

I've been here 8 years and 20000 posts. I ain't going anywhere.

[nichomachus]

54. The problem is not what this man thinks

It's not even what he says. It's the fact that he contributes a portion of his proceeds to a designated hate group that advocates the murder of gay people in Africa. If the business owner designates a portion of his profits to go to a group that wants to kill blacks or Jews should they be allowed to operate also?

[COLGATE4]

69. The problem is EXACTLY what the man thinks.

In the U.S. you are permitted to freely donate to groups of all kinds, including those that you deem to be 'hate groups'. That designation has no legal status whatsoever. The only legal restriction on giving is regarding terrorist organizations, those which are so designated by the U.S. government. If that is not the issue a business has the right to donate as it feels best and operate without government interference. It's called freedom of speech.

[4th law of robotics]

55. Sir I'm going to have to ask you to cease and desist

this is a no-logic zone.

Any sort of rational thought or contemplation of future consequences is not acceptable.

Please consider this your last warning.

[Chemisse]

57. That is absolutely right.

Try putting the shoe on the other foot; How would we feel if a business was blocked from being built because it was run by a gay couple? It's wrong either way.

I will be happy to boycott any business that has owners who are actively anti-gay, but they have every right to have that business.

[Son of Gob]

58. Who said they didn't?

[Chemisse]

146. If that has happened, it would be equally wrong.

Just because the assholes do it doesn't mean we have to stoop so low.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Which business was blocked from being built? Name it. Name even one.

You can't because that has not happened. Thus far, nothing but free speech all around. No one blocked from anything, and the only people whose rights are being infringed are as always, the LGBT people, who still do not have equal rights.

[Nye Bevan]

125. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[awoke_in_2003]

60. Yep. We should not act like them...

just keep spreading the word and hope the business suffers.

[MNBrewer]

61. Zoning would be a perfect way to do it

Chicago is a 24-7 city, and its tourist destinations need service every day of the week. Permits for new fast food restaurants will be given to restaurants that are open 7 days a week.

[COLGATE4]

72. Doubtful this would pass as a zoning restriction.

[MNBrewer]

87. why?

[COLGATE4]

92. No rational basis for requiring all fast food

restaurants to be open 7 days a week. Would be seen as pretextual.

[MNBrewer]

96. Rational basis: the city wants restaurants that serve food 7 days a week

What's not rational about that?

[Nye Bevan]

107. So you've no problem with driving out Orthodox Jewish owned businesses? (nt)

[MNBrewer]

108. Nobody said it had to be staffed by orthodox jews on saturday.

[-..__...]

185. So... by that reasoning...

single owner, single location, mom and pop operations, would have to abide by the rules also... be it subs/pizza//hoagies (or whatever the fuck they call it there), would have to comply as well?

[COLGATE4]

193. Why would a city care about that

unless it's a pretext. In addition, assuming that such a reg could pass, do you think the city would be prepared to shut down all Kosher or Halal restaurants?







9

[MNBrewer]

201. Why would a city care if my lawn is 8 inches tall, or 9 inches tall?

"Rational basis" for city ordinances is pretty arbitrary, with lots of leeway. 8 inches, ok. 9 inches, not OK.

[COLGATE4]

205. It's not city ordinances we're talking about -

it's zoning, quite a different matter. There are legal challenges to zoning - not so for ordinances.

[MNBrewer]

206. Ordinance: all fast food restaurants opened as "out lot" facilities must be open 7 days a week.

[COLGATE4]

212. Good luck getting that to stick when all the Kosher

fast-food places file suit.

[MNBrewer]

213. Yeah, kosher fast food places... eyeroll

There are SO many of them clamoring to be in Home Depot out lots. your concern for Orthodox Jewry really is touching, though.

[COLGATE4]

214. You're either intentionally missing the point

or you're just being obtuse. You can't make a law constitutional by trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Trying to pass your supposed 'ordinance' which would require all fast food stores to be open 7 days a week is patently unconstitutional. There is no legitimate governmental reason for doing so (notwithstanding your allegation that there is) and in addition it directly violates the 1st Amendment by requiring people who respect a sabbath to keep their businesses open as a condition of existence. (And no, your argument that 'they can hire somebody to keep the store open on Sunday) doesn't get you around the constitutional problem. And, BTW my concern for Orthodox Jewry is the same as my concern for a Christian (like Chick-a-Fil) who won't keep his stores open on Sunday and for a Muslim who won't keep his open on Saturday.

[MNBrewer]

216. It's lovely how the "legitimate" religions are given such deference here in this country

isn't it?

[COLGATE4]

217. It's called the U.S. Constitution -

you should familiarize yourself with it sometime.

[cali]

74. that's ridiculous

utterly fucking ridiculous. I'm getting more than weary of people who want to shred the Constitution. And there is not ONE locality in this country where you can zone a business out because you don't like the views of the CEO.

[MNBrewer]

88. It happens all the time

they just find other reasons.

[Nye Bevan]

75. Many Jewish-owned stores in New York City are closed on Saturday.

Would you be fine with it if NYC drove out Jewish-owned electronics stores via this kind of zoning cleverness?

[JDPriestly]

73. I don't know what specific issue you are talking about, but

a city government can refuse a building permit for any of a number of reasons -- including permits to set up a restaurant which involves meeting certain standards.

Maybe the problem isn't the opinions of the prospective owner but something about the way he or she conducts business.

[Nye Bevan]

81. Banning restaurants because of rat droppings in the kitchen is fine.

Banning restaurants because one of the owners is pro-life, anti-gun, anti-gay marriage, etc., is not.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. And when did this happen, this thing you speak of?

Well it did not happen, actually. Of the parties involved in the issue, which party actually suffers from unequal treatment by the government in countless areas? Well the LGBT people of course. What rights of Mr Cathy's have been infringed? None. What rights are he denied? None. So what is your complaint again? Someone said something? Poor Mr Cathy was harmed how, exactly? Or is the potential that he might suffer injustice just so terrible, while the fact that millions currently and daily do suffer injustice at the hands of the government is of no real concern year after year?
Show me this banned restaurant. Show me one. If you can't, stop reaching into the drama box.

[Nye Bevan]

101. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

Hope this helps.

[notadmblnd]

76. correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the Mayor of Boston who said

(and I'm paraphrasing here) That the ridiculously named, fast food chicken restaurant, should not- not- could not open a dining establishment in Boston?

and I have another question, Don't States and localities have the power to prohibit businesses they don't want? the few that come to my mind are MJ dispensaries, strip clubs, adult stores?

[Nye Bevan]

104. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[WCGreen]

78. Exactly. Well stated...

[demgurl]

82. Rahm did not, and is not, trying to block Chick-Fil-A!!!

[link:http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-Chick-fil-A-Chicago-164043916.html|

To clarify, Cooper said Emanuel still believes "their values are not Chicago values." But that doesn't mean he would block them.


"If they meet all the requirements, they're welcome to open a restaurant here."


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-Chick-fil-A-Chicago-164043916.html#ixzz22QkkBMuh

[Nye Bevan]

103. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

Hope this helps.

[DURHAM D]

109. Everyone please read the article at the link so you can see how dishonest some posters really are.

Among other things you will notice that Rahm is not quoted in the article.

This whole thread is designed to bash gays.

[scheming daemons]

114. there is nothing in this thread that bashes gays. LGBTs are CORRECT to boycott...

And I personally will never eat there because of that bigot Cathy.

This thread is to bash Rahm and others who want to use govt power to control thought.

[DURHAM D]

119. So what was the purpose of your lie if not gay bashing?

[scheming daemons]

164. what lie?

[girl gone mad]

123. Why spread right wing memes?

You've never been one to oppose thought control before.

[Nye Bevan]

120. Do you stand with Alderman Proco Moreno? (nt)

[Deep13]

90. No one is blocking anything.

City officials are simply voicing their opinions. These are not actual laws, which is why ACLU is dead wrong on this.

Besides, local officials have a constitutional obligation to ensure equal protection of the laws. Permitting business to discriminate against minority groups violates that mandate. Seriously, does the city have to allow businesses that exclude blacks or Muslims or women?

[Nye Bevan]

102. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[Deep13]

111. And individual aldermen have that power?

Isn't there a city department for that?

[Nye Bevan]

116. In Chicago, those guys have considerable power.

Moreno himself seems to think he has that power. It's his words, after all.

[tularetom]

99. I don't think he has that right and I don't even think he claimed to have it

I believe he was merely expressing a personal opinion, something that even elected officials are permitted under the US constitution.

My opinion of the guy is lower than whale shit but this time I agree with him.

[Nye Bevan]

106. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[DURHAM D]

115. No matter how many times you post this link Rahm is still not quoted in it.

You are just making stuff up - like the OP.

[Nye Bevan]

118. Do you stand with Alderman Proco Moreno? (nt)

[DURHAM D]

121. Do you know what spam is?

[Nye Bevan]

126. "I wll deny Chik-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward"

- Alderman Proco Moreno, in a statement that Rahm Emmanuel has supported.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726_1_anti-gay-comments-1st-ward-homophobic-comments

[MNBrewer]

132. Has Alderman Moreno actually stopped the opening of the restaurant?

Are Aldermen in Chicago given veto power over all new development in their wards?

[Nye Bevan]

133. Do you support him in his quest?

And yes, Chicago Aldermen have considerable power.

[MNBrewer]

203. "No harm, no foul", as they say

HAS Alderman Moreno actually blocked Chik-fil-A from opening in his ward?

[DURHAM D]

134. More importantly - did Rahm actually say what is in the title of this OP. NO !

This purpose of this thread is to gay bash and promote right wing talking points. It seems to have worked very well.

Look at the Rec list and remember the names...

[Nye Bevan]

138. The OP does not quote Rahm as "saying" anything.

However, as I believe I have posted elsewhere in this thread, Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno vowed to prevent Chik-fil-A opening in his ward, and Rahm expressed support for this statement.

[girl gone mad]

141. The OP states that Rahm is abusing his power as mayor to ban Chick-Fil-A.

This appears to be an unsubstantiated allegation.

[Nye Bevan]

143. I would say that publicly supporting Alderman Moreno's quest is indeed an abuse of his power (nt)

[girl gone mad]

149. You haven't shown that he does support any specific actions on the part of Moreno..

and you've failed to explain which Mayoral powers Rahm is abusing. Simply stating that Chick-Fil-A doesn't represent the values of the city is not an abuse of power.

[Nye Bevan]

155. Do you stand with Alderman Moreno? (nt)

[girl gone mad]

160. Chick-Fil-A should follow the rules, just like every other business must.

If Chick-Fil-A cannot demonstrate it's commitment to equal opportunity employment and non-discrimination, then they haven't earned the right to do business in the district.

[Nye Bevan]

162. Alderman Moreno's vow is based on Dan Cathy's views,

not on equal opportunity employment or non-discrimination. Read his article.

[girl gone mad]

165. Did you even read the article you spammed to this thread?

Moreno clearly states that his concern is based in Chick-Fil-A's blatant failure to demonstrate a commitment to equal opportunity employment. After refusing to address the Alderman's concerns, Cathy very publicly reaffirmed his support for bigotry and intolerance. Talk about your brain-dead business moves.

If your company is struggling to win a business permit in a progressive district, don't go to the national media and brag about giving money to the KKK. That's just common sense, of which Cathy is clearly lacking.

[Nye Bevan]

166. From the article...

Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage.

There are consequences for one's actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man's ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.

[girl gone mad]

176. I guess that's where you stopped reading.

I've been in discussions with the company for the past nine months. Every time we met, I brought up my concerns that the company supported a homophobic agenda. My concerns were based on financial contributions made by WinShape Foundation, Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, to anti-gay groups. I was repeatedly told by company officials that "we (Chick-fil-A) are not political" and that the company "had no political agenda." Just recently, an attorney for the chain tried to convince me of Chick-fil-A's benevolence. During each meeting, I challenged the company to change its ways. Although I thought we had made some progress, Cathy's anti-gay comments made it abundantly clear what the company's true stance is toward equal rights.

Like I said, if you're trying to convince a district that you're an equal opportunity employer who doesn't discriminate, don't turn around and donate tons of money to the KKK and brag about it in the national media. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[patrice]

129. Anything less than the Golden Rule will produce an effect that is OPPOSITE of what one intends. nt

[liberallibral]

157. Bingo!!

Exactly... So many people refuse to see the logic, just because they disagree with the CEO of Chick-Fil-A's religious beliefs.

Blocking or threatening a business (because of a difference in opinion) works BOTH ways! Why do some people not get that?

[DURHAM D]

161. This thread is a classic.

Start with a false premise by faking a position not taken by a Democrat, then throw in a progressive value and pretend it is being trampled, watch/help everyone get wound up with angry indignation around this false setup, and then lean back and smile as they run off the cliff or to the Rec button.

This is liberals, progressive and Democrats being played in the same manner that the teabaggers and dittoheads are played with false narratives, lies and half-truths. How embarrassing...

Beck, Rush and Hannity would be so proud.

[Nye Bevan]

163. Somehow in these arguments I always seem to find myself siding with the ACLU (nt)

[fascisthunter]

167. lol...

you are a perfect butterfly who hates the 99%. Congrats...

[Nye Bevan]

169. Well, I've been accused of a lot of things, but "perfect butterfly" is a first.

Thanks, I guess.

[fascisthunter]

171. fragile too

kumbaya

[Son of Gob]

180. Well said.

[yardwork]

195. Hauling a false premise up the flagpole that just happens to require criticizing gay rights activism

What a coincidence, eh.

[RoseMead]

208. Thank you. n/t

[girl gone mad]

168. You do realize that you are comparing a religious group to a business?

Religious groups have far broader rights in this country, including the right to discriminate in hiring. So, no, even if Rahm could or would block a Chick-Fil-A franchise (which you haven't actually shown he is doing), Bloomberg still couldn't stop the construction of a mosque in NYC.

http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&id=7740

[fascisthunter]

172. but when it comes to MAKING MONEY, it's all ok in Amerikkkka.

I'm sure the germans felt the same way about hatred in their time too... "let's be reasonable," with the psychotic that is.

[MNBrewer]

207. I doubt Mr. Cathy sees a difference.

[fascisthunter]

170. Germany does not accept bigotry for a good reason.

Nor should any other country. Want a business... go to a country that supports bigotry, because yes, in the end, our tax money makes it possible for them to be bigots. SO we have a say.

Oh, this isn't about THINKING, it's about ACTION. They FUND bigotry... get it?!

[Nye Bevan]

177. Ah, that clarifies the issue. Thanks. (nt)

[fascisthunter]

178. good... glad your proto-fascist self agrees

[Deep13]

189. Isn't this the Citizens United rationale?

Corporations have the same free speech rights as people and spending money is the same as speaking. Most of us here disagree with that logic so why is it suddenly a valid argument when it comes to businesses who oppose civil rights?

[Nye Bevan]

190. Do you accept that corporations have any rights at all?

Or would you be OK with the police searching the offices of DemocraticUnderground LLC for no reason, and confiscating the property of DemocraticUnderground LLC without paying any compensation?

[Deep13]

210. Corporations are not people, so it has no organic rights.

"LLC," limited liability company, is a form of partnership. It is not a perpetual "artificial person" like a corporation. And anyway, we really ought to stop pretending that huge corporations have anything in common with small, closely held businesses that we also call corporations. Small corporation owners are primary actors and are, therefore, directly liable for anything they do. They usually have to cosign comply debts and put personal property as security for them. And ownership is not diffused among many many shareholders. A small business corporation is a legal fiction. A large corporation is an entity unto itself. The only rights they ought to have are those that society deems fit to give them.

[closeupready]

194. Well then let Mr. Cathy hire a lawyer and sue in court, if he wants.

Until then, I really don't care.

[backscatter712]

199. Hate to say it, but Rahm did overreach.

Dan Cathy has the right to act like a total douchenozzle, and we all have the right to tell him to suck his cock.

But Rahm doesn't have the right to block Chick-Fil-A from building just because Cathy spouts anti-gay hatred.

Better to make sure any Chick-Fil-As that do open end up closing again from lack of business due to extended boycotts.

[lynne]

211. Excellent article in CNN explaining the legal aspect -

- and you are, of course, right. No individual within any aspect of city/county/state/federal government can deny any restaurant a license, zoning, approval, etc. merely because they don't agree with the opinion of restaurant management.

Very much worth reading> http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/randazza-first-amendment/

[randome]

215. But we CAN prevent the Ku Klux Klan from adopting highways.

Is there a difference?

[lynne]

218. Missouri tried to stop the KKK from adopting a highway and lost in court -

- for the very same reasons. According to the following article, Georgia is now in the same boat. If the KKK takes it to court, it appears they have a valid case.

http://www.ajc.com/news/kkk-group-seeks-adopt-1455819.html