IANAL either, but I think you need a reason that comports with the Constitution. And barring a company due to the religious stance of the owner, or of the company itself, I don’t think is reason that the Constitution wouldn’t say, "What are you fucking kidding me?
No, it isn’t. The city doesn’t do business with the company, and I’m doubtful it is kosher for city governments to punish companies based on (disgusting but Constitutionally protected) statements by a company executive. Consumers do business with the company and they’re well within their rights to take Cathy’s stupidity into account when they descide where to eat. For whatever it’s worth, the ACLU agrees with me and I think other legal experts do, too.
My objection is that the belief that it somehow benefits society to expand marriage to include SS couples , religious or not, is grounded in nothing. There is no rational foundation, no data to support such a belief. To intentionally deny someone the same rights you enjoy, on a foundation of nothing, is no way to make public policy.
For all the conservative cries of indoctrination by gays and progressives the fact is that no group has indoctrinated our citizenry more than Christianity. Some vague non specific feeling that SSM is wrong , with no data to support it is IMO a prime example.
I doubt very much that that would be the listed reason for the denial to build. “Permit denied, Reason: Owner is a Dick.” No doubt they will use one of the thousand and one reasons cities have to slow, deny, or alter permits. All of which will have a legal precedent. Not being a lawyer, constitutional or otherwise, I know of no legal protection that gives any business the right to operate wherever they please. As far as I know, a city can deny a business entry for whatever reason it likes. Chik-fil-A would have to prove in court that the denial was based solely on the protected speech of the owner, something that any decent politician wouldn’t let happen.
A man is running for president of the US who belongs to a religion that has
- A history of polygamy
- A history of outright war with the US army
- A belief in bogus translations and linguistics (see reformed Egyptian)
- A complete denail of alcohol, coffee, and drugs
- Funny underwear
Now…a different man is against gay marriage. And government officials want to ban his company from opening restaurants. Has chick-fill-a fired a gay man? Have they refused service to anyone? Even the ACLU says this is prejudice.
Why is Mitt getting a free pass, while people jump on Cathy?
That’s a figleaf and it does not make the action Constitutional or more tolerable from a legal standpoint. Even if the city found a legal justification to deny the permits, you don’t want a municipality doing that because the mayor personally disagrees with their politics. Anyway this is academic, I think: the mayor of Boston has acknowledged he doesn’t have the power to stop Chik-fil-A from doing busines there. I applaud him for speaking out, though.
This is a discussion best left to another thread. You’re welcome to start that thread if you want to.
He can hold whatever views he wants. Chik-Fil-A has some damn good chicken, and that’s all I care about.
May we quote that the next time you decide to throw a snarky non sequitur into a discussion?
-The traditional moraliity of Christian sects has said anything except sex in a hetero marriage is wrong. For the record I’ve slept with working girls. Therefore, I’m in violation of the rules and morals that Chick-Fill-A holds to. Would I eat there? Yes. I slept with hookers cause it was fun, cheap, easy, and I was drunk. But I understand many, if not MOST people find it offensive.
-You are all well within your rights to boycott the company, but for elected officials to come out against his company is a betrayal of american values and freedom of speech.
-Remember this isn’t hate speech, he never said kill X. He went off a theological tangent. Many people don’t even have religious beliefes anymore.
Not at all. I agree that denying them a business license based on Cathy’s beliefs would run contrary to those values, but mayors like Emanuel and Menino and Bloomberg were supporting the rights of their own gay citizens (which are often denied) when they called Cathy out for what he is.
Hate speech has never been defined that way.
So elected officials speaking out on an issue is a betrayal of American values and freedom of speech. Interesting.
Emanuel and the DC guy’s public statements are pretty strong evidence that the permit was (or will be) denied on the basis of speech entitled to First Amendment protection.
Yeah, it is interesting. While I see nothing wrong with a mayor offering his opinion as a citizen, once he hints that he’s going to bring the power of his office to bear against a company that has broken zero laws and done nothing wrong, that’s a problem. And in Emanuel’s case, when he worked for Obama, Obama was against SSM, as well. Talk about hypocritical!
Go right on ahead.
“I disagree with you therefore I don’t want you in [my] city.”
It’s not hypocritical. I realize that Obama and some other prominent politicians (almost all of them Democrats) have finally got this issue right and the Republican party is the grip of gaybashing troglodytes and that this leaves few remaining criticisms other than empty shouts of “hypocrite!” That’s a tough position to be in. But Emanuel hasn’t done anything hypocritical here. He was not the president, he was the chief of staff. I don’t know what his personal position on this issue was or what he may have said to Obama about it, but he was not the guy in charge. He’s in that position now as mayor of Chicago and his criticism of Chik-fil-A is accurate.
Another snarky non-sequitur.
It’s a non-sequitur, you say? Pray tell, I’d be interested in knowing how you came to such a conclusion. I’ll gladly wait.
Because it has nothing to do with what I wrote. I said they were right to criticize Cathy’s comments and wrong to block any license to Chik-fil-A. Of course you could have figured all of this out for yourself by reading the post.
“Offenderati”? You’re not arguing that they’re WRONG to be offended that a wealthy and powerful man is spending many thousands of dollars getting out the message that they’re sinners not worthy of equal protection under the law? I’d definitely be offended! Wouldn’t you? I’d hope you would!
True, but I bet it would be a nasty court battle, which would ultimately be wasted even if CFA won it. I’ve done a little research and from what I gather, cities have a fairly wide latitude in what business they allow and deny permits to operate in their area. In my own city for example, chain restaurants are not given license to operate very often; and those that are are restricted to a very small and specific portion of the city.
However, if CFA previously had permits (before the comments) and was negotiating with the city in good faith, then they would have a serious case. If they didn’t have anything concrete yet, I don’t see how even a verdict in their favor could force a city to allow them to operate within its jurisdiction. The constitution does not provide for such measures anywhere that I can see.