And I wake up screaming…
To my knowledge, they can’t. If you want to keep out Walmart, you have to write zoning against all comparable big-box stores in a given area.
Not really. The strip club and the church are just in different categories, and the former isn’t allowed near the latter in some jurisdictions. The particular religious beliefs of the church (or the strip club) aren’t relevant.
Just for the record, this was the old man not the son Richard M Daley.
What? You could have forced her to read a newspaper?
Nice try. But, no. Communities may zone to exclude fast food restaurants, but not to exclude one particular fast food restaurant based on the political views of its owner.
Yes.
If the “opinion” in question is, “I will block any attempt to open a second location in this city,” and it’s spoken by an alderman, then yes, the First Amendment prohibits that speech in a way that it wouldn’t prohibit similar speech from you or me.
Not going to waste time with (b): if Palin said something accurate, I’m sure it was by accident.
But (a) is not correct. Even the threat, under official color of law, to deprive CFA of a business location is actionable, even if they never follow through.
Can’t get mad about this one. Although what she said was stupid, one could argue that she knew about the Boston and Chicago issues, and was lumping everything together.
Gentlepersons, can we not all agree that the Malign Sarah has actually said something that is not totally wrong? Ought we not to celebrate? Personally, I would congratulate the producers of After School Specials for their educational success!
And Palin hans’t done anything either. All three of them seem not to understand the 1st amendment.
Could Chicago or Boston government officials get around 1st Amendment issues by requiring businesses to not discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation, and require large businesses to document such a policy in writing? This would include treating same-sex couples (be they married, in a civil union, or merely cohabiting) the same as opposite-sex couples.
At that point, Chick-fil-A can either implement such a policy, which some would argue paints Cathy as a hypocrite unwilling to fully put his money where his mouth is, or not implement such a policy and then be unable to set up shop in those towns.
Or write up such a policy but not actually implement it, opening themselves up to lawsuits.
Absolutely.
Not by fiat, but the state legislatures could pass such laws, or permit their cities to pass such laws.
Not sure it would make Cathay a hypocrite, though, as he could say that he respects the law and will obey it while simultaneously advocating for its change.
Have any communities threatened to do that to Chick-fil-A?
You would have lobbied for her to be an across-the-aisle appointment to Secretary of Transportation and then gone on a killing spree?
Only dead fish go with a slow running clock that might be right every once in a long while.
I humbly propose “the Doofine Sarah”.
Damn Palin, she is trampling my First Amendment rights to trample on the Chik-fil-A dudes first amendment rights. I am literally being tarred and feathered here by a bunch of wild horses trying to tear me limb from limb.
Oh, the humanity!
Cite? Not disagreeing, just haven’t heard this before.
“Hey Mom, what are you up to today?”
“Well, I just got back from Chick-Fil-A… I went to show my support, you know… are you okay?”
“Mmm!”
“Sounded like you were crying! Anyway…”
Sure. A Chicago alderman and mayor announcing they wouldn’t permit the franchise to open a second location? That’s a credible threat, from people who have the power to effect the consequence.