Same thing in Boston-Mayor “Mumbles” Menino wrote a letter to Cathy, condemning Cathy’s stance on gay marriage.
Frankly, I think Cathy should sue Chicago and Boston-the firm hasn’t broken any laws.
I fucking hate bigots, but I do not like this at all.
Not a huge fan of CfA, but this seems unconstitutional to me.
It does sound like the government is suppressing free speech here.
As much as I disagree with Mr. Cathy’s position on the matter, it is entirely out of the government’s hands what he says. The populace can, of course, boycott the store once it is opened. They can put up billboards denouncing Mr. Cathy’s statements.
Unless it can be shown that Chik-fil-A is discriminatory in its hiring practices or its treatment of its customers, I don’t see how this can be justified.
Apparently the ACLU has come down on the side of Chik-fil-A.
Oof. That takes a lot of fun out of the morally superior attitude I had been so carefully cultivating in this matter.
Fuckin’ Politically Correct liberals. Always trying to put Christians down with their war on family values.
I can see why people who disagree with Cathy would applaud this but this is not what Aldermen and Mayors are supposed to do.
How would you write legislation to discriminate against discrimination? As a privately held company CfA has just as much right to publicly oppose gay marriage as I have to never go there again.
One reason I love ACLU. They really do work to protect civil liberties. Even when it’s not popular.
They aren’t supposed to showboat for political points? Since when?
Yeah, I have to agree. This is bone headed.
I will admit I appreciate the fact I have lived to see the day when elected leaders would take such a strong position in support of gay rights but this is a load of BS. I don’t like the thought police when they are with me any more than when they are against me.
The real irony here is, the location CFL is planning to open in Chicago that is currently being blocked is in a super gay friendly, hipster neighborhood. I imagine they would have found themselves in a very hostile environment. The smart thing to do would be let them go ahead and open so we all have the fun of seeing them get boycotted and picketed out of business. The free market at work and all that, dontcha know…
Now that will leave a bad taste in your mouth right there.
Also sounds like a way for Chicago to get sued. Even if Chicago doesn’t end up paying a settlement or fine or something how much money are they going to blow on lawyers for their side?
Out of curiosity, I wonder if A) they picked that spot before the statement was made and B)I see they are a chain (as opposed to a franchise) so I wonder if corporate drove through and picked a spot that looked good (as opposed to a Chicago native). If there aren’t pride flags hanging or if they drove through in winter and didn’t see hipsters walking around it might have just looked like a nice densely packed neighborhood.
My understanding is that in order for the restaurant to open, the city council has to pass legislation allowing a change in the land use. (Chicago Tribune: “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.”) The alderman isn’t going to allow this law to be passed. So it’s not a matter of passing a law against the restaurant, but not passing a law that’s required for the restaurant to be built. Is there a difference?
Politicians always have a hand in what businesses do or don’t get to open up in their city. They make those decisions to block or not block for a variety of reasons. Blocking a business they view as discriminatory is no less valid a reason than any, imo.
What if the CEO had said things about believing in the sanctity of white folks only marrying white folks? Being very much supportive of the white race? Their businesses typically being led by whites?
Well, now that the politicians have gone on RECORD as saying Chik will be kept out because of the owners beliefs I would imagine some lawyers are gonna have fun with that even if they come up with “real” justifiable reasons why they don’t want it built there.
I agree. Let’s delete CFA.
But discrimination against race is actually illegal. Holding the opinion that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry other people of their own gender isn’t.