For which part? Generally, 42 USC §1983 gives rise to a civil action for a state official acting under color of law who deprives the plaintiff of constitutional rights.
The part where saying you’ll do it is actionable.
Good point. I amend it to the claim that if Palin had hired AND OBEYED me as a consultant, she’d be the Vice-President now.
He could have forced her to remember the name of one.
All CFA has to do is show any resulting harm – costs incurred from a contingency plan, options exercised in prudent concern over the possibility of the mayor’s threats being realized, investor reluctance, anything at all.
Why? Is your contention that she needed tu quoque training?
As already noted earlier, the mayor made no such threat. He did talk about the ways in which, in his opinion, the owner of Chik-Fil-A was unlike folks in Chicago, but when asked about preventing their opening, Emanuel explicitly said that he would make no effort to prevent them.
Moreno actually talked about keeping them out of his ward.
Well, that might get them their day in court, but quantifying (let alone proving) damages is a bit of a leap.
Oh, absolutely. It would be a merely symbolic victory. But i am pretty sure they could say something like, “After Mayor Emmanuel spoke, we directed our architect to begin drawing plans for a new location outside the city limits; he spent 12 hours at a cost of $300 per hour.” chump change, but actionable.
Fair enough. Substitute Moreno for Emmanuel, then.
As you put it, they’d have to demonstrate prudent concern. This is beside the point, though, which is that Moreno was unequivocally wrong to make those comments.
Clearly the most rational way to handle Emanuel and Menino’s comments is to threaten them with guns.
Two wrongs don’t make a right but shooting public officials sure will make news.
Bit off topic, but both of the Chick-Fil-A stores in my neighborhood had huge, out-te-door lines this evening. Maybe their damages will be offset.
That’s because today was Mike Huckabee’s “national Chick-fil-A day”.
Chicago already has non-discriminatory regulations on the books that explicitly cover sexual orientation. Chick-Fil-A has refused to sign paperwork saying they recognize and will abide by those regulations.
Cite?
However, it looks the alderman has turned around and stated that he has met with the local franchisees and they are agreeing to not be discriminatory, so he is more open to granting the permit.
Cite?
I’d like to read whatever article you are pulling this from.
Can’t find my original source and it’s getting late. Here’s the closest I can find, and it doesn’t quite make the same claim.