I would rather see Cathy purchase the property, build the restaurant, and then never sell a sammich.
In my “what if” straw man, he’s not actually saying he would discriminate against anyone because of race. He’s (in a make-believe world) making distasteful statements based on his beliefs about whites. In the real world, he’s making distasteful statements based on his beliefs about gay people. If, in fact, he was making distasteful statements about blacks or Asians or Jews, I don’t think people would have as much of a problem with politicians standing up to CfA’s expansion in their area.
In my city recently, there were politicians trying to block a Goodwill store because they didn’t think the business was the right fit for the location. If these Chicago and Boston politicians don’t think CfA is the right fit for this location in their city based upon CfA’s corporate policies, beliefs and public support of discriminatory organizations, I don’t see why they can’t fight the company’s expansion there.
An anti-Semetic pro-Hitler store trying to open up in a predominately Jewish area would be fought tooth and nail at city hall.
I could be wrong, and am not a lawyer obviously, just my thoughts.
So now Mayors can unilaterally block a business expansion based on whether that business aligns with their personal philosophy? I could see the uproar if a conservative Mayor told a pro-choice business that they’re not welcome to expand in “his” city.
Nope, not cool and an abuse of power.
Still, even if the CEO personally believed in the superiority of the white race, so long as he didn’t discriminate in his hiring or business practices (ie, refuse to serve minority customers), I think he would be in the clear.
That, and the fact that cases like this cause head explosions amongst people who think the ACLU are a bunch of bleeding-heart anti-Christian weenies.
Put me down as a “me too” for leaving this one to the market rather than the gubmint.
I wonder if a city could pass a law requiring business located in the city to have a formal non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation. Nashville passed a similar law a while back that prohibited the metro governement from doing business with organizations that didn’t; however this was later overturned by the state legislature.
My point is that if CFA refused to conform with a local statute, by all means keep them out. But blocking them becasue the CEO has an unpopular opinion – yeah, that’s just not right.
But in Happy’s example he was.
Where? I assume you mean the part where I make-believe have him say “that his businesses are typically being led by whites.” This doesn’t necessarily mean he is practicing discriminatory hiring. It means he’s a bigot.
Although, if you *do *want to argue that that make-believe quote shows discriminatory hiring practices, then maybe he in fact DOES practice discriminatory hiring against gays, based on his quotes in the Baptist press:.
He first states that he supports the “biblical definition of the family unit.” Then he goes on to say “our restaurants are typically led by families.”
Is that discriminatory?
Here’s advice on how to become an ‘operator’ (their euphemism for the person who runs a single store and pays for the privilege although they get no ownership):
Granted, that’s not a Chick Fil-A document, but requiring managers to pray, and preferring married people when you donate to causes preventing gay marriage seem really actionable discriminatory practices to me.
Are you sure he wrote it? Was everything spelled correctly?
In another thread there were several anecdotes about gay people who work for CFA. There is some evidence that they may use sexual orientation as a factor when choosing franchise owners. But nothing official that you could prove. Their website states that they obey all federal and state labor laws. I bet they are very careful to follow the letter of the law.
If thats the case (which IMO it could well be) then you find some gay single guy or the like who was rejected because of it and run with a civil rights lawsuit.
Denying somebody the right to build because of their opinion means you have punished them before you proved them guilty of having done anything wrong other than having an opinion you don’t like.
Never mind.
Agreed. With the added attention to CFA of late, I think we’ll see it soon.
Mayor Menino has stated that while he would like to block ChickFilA, he can’t actually do so.
What he has basically done is make it impossible for the city to block the new restaurant, even for legitimate purposes. Any denial of a permit will be taken to court, and claimed to be a pretext, based on the mayor’s statements.
Chicago already has such a law - discrimination is not allowed in hiring or public accommodations among other things. I’m not aware of any accusations that Chik-Fil-A has been discriminatory in their hiring practices or refusing service to customers because they are gay so it appears they would be in compliance. If they have I would imagine we will be hearing about it.
As much as I dislike what Mr. Cathy said, I’m not in favor of government getting involved in something like this.
I currently work for a restaurant company in Chicago that several years ago was a corporate sponsor when the Gay Games were held here. The name of our company appeared in ads and on promotional material. We were notified by a conservative Christian organization based in Illinois that if we didn’t withdraw our sponsorship they would organize a boycott of our businesses. The owners ignored the threat and it had very little negative impact, if any, on our restaurants. Since then we have opened additional locations in surrounding suburbs. Would it have been okay for one of those municipalities to refuse a business license because they found our past sponsorship? Of course not and the same thing applies in this case.
Better yet a gay married guy. If they are trying to go into Massachusetts its legal there. So flood the applications for ownership with married gay people. But you have to be careful. Chik-fil-a expects their owners to be hands on. They do not except anyone to buy it as an investment. One of the reasons the stores are well run. Trying to become a franchise owner under false pretenses would not be good for a lawsuit.
I think they’d be better off looking into the alleged hiring practices. I wish I could find the info someone cited here somewhere but my search-fu is off today; it mentioned only hiring married people, looking into your church activities…
Agreed. This is a First Amendment issue. If Cathy and CFA do go to court, they are gonna get a bucketload of money because they have a slam-dunk case.
Didn’t several cities and even states in the Northeast block Wal Mart from opening stores a few years ago? How did that play out?