And that’s exactly what the Alderman said. He didn’t say “They can’t come here because I disagree with them.” he said:
He simply made it clear that no openly discriminatory business is going to get support to change land-use scope for it’s own benefit. I’m 100% behind him on that.
There is only so much land available, and the entire purpose of the council and the permitting process is to make sure that the businesses which are most positive for the overall community are the ones that go up.
As a teenager, I was part of a committe that helped prevent Hooters from opening a restaurant next door to my high school. Granted, they found another site a mile away, but at least we didn’t have to look at it every day on the way to school. Do young women not have the right to get an education without having to pass such an objectionable business?
Won’t somebody please think of the Gay Children?!?
One hears a lot of scorn for the “NIMBY” attititude. But really, isn’t that the only place we do have a right to influence? If our taxes and efforts are part of building a town or district, don’t we have the right to voice in the direction in which new businesses will take it?
I agree with the general sentiment in this thread. I don’t support the statements made by Cathy, even moreso because I am Christian and I feel like those types of statements have a way of misrepresenting Christianity. However, I don’t think trying to block or even pretending to block them from opening a restaurant is the right move to make and very clearly seems like a First Amendment violation. Really, I think the better approach would be to have simply drawn attention to it and let the people protest or boycott or whatever. Especially if it’s true that one of the locations is in a very gay-friendly neighborhood. The way to stop discrimination against gays isn’t through thought police and abuse of power.
That article addresses some of the questions about the company’s discriminatory practices, “Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)”
If it’s accomplished by unequal application of the law based on the business owner’s particular speech or beliefs, how could it not be? Would Joe Moreno require “a written anti-discrimination policy” (which he would be the judge of?) from a Muslim- or atheist-owned business?
If municipalities can deny businesses the opportunity to operate in their jurisdiction based on the personal religious or political beliefs of the owner how is it not a First Amendment question? Keep in mind, no one has yet come forward saying the company has conducted itself in a way that would violate anti-discrimination laws. People just don’t like the position the owner has taken.
What if the situation was reversed and the owners were atheists or openly gay? It would be just as wrong to prohibit them from opening a business as it is in this case.
Nope. The Atheists, Communists, and Lunatics Union manages to come down on the correct side of an issue approximately once a year. It’s not really enough to justify their existence, but at least they’re not a complete waste of space and oxygen.
What’s so rich in this case is that the majority of the people foaming at the mouth (Rush, O’Reiley et al) about this discrimination were the very ones who were foaming at the mouth to deny the Ground Zero Mosque. Cuts both ways…
Rahm worked for two administrations that openly opposed gay marriage. Apparently that didn’t bother him. His last boss opposed gay marriage until very recently. Now he turns into a pro-gay bully? How convenient, how timely. Talk about creepy preachers.
The hell are you talking about? Let’s take the beliefs of your employer and openly judge you against them, sound fair? The sad truth in US politics is that in order to get anything of substance done, you have to play nice with the “bad guys”.
You clearly have something against the guy, but now that he finally agrees with you he’s creepy? I can’t even tell which side of this issue you fall on.
He’s simply grandstanding, and not very well. With all the crap that is going on in Chicago, to stand up for some supposed “Chicago Values” is a laugh. So now they get to say “Rahm threatens heretofore law abiding fast food CEO while welcoming anti-semite Farrakhan with open arms”. It does more harm than good and is sickeningly self serving.