General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: if Rahm has the right to block a restaurant from being built... [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)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business owner to say, "I will comply with this law as long as it's in effect but I think it's a bad law and should be repealed."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.