How I explained the Chick Fil A.

[DearAbby]

RW: ....Mayor will oppose any opening of a Chick Fil A store in the DC area. What exactly has given him this right? Other left wing Mayors are also doing this same thing. I agree that the Mayor has the right to not eat there if he wishes, but his right should end with himself...not me.

My Answer: City Council have zoning laws? They can keep a business from going in via ZONING. By what right? The people who elected him gave him that right...if the council agrees they vote for the measure....all democratically. You see RW NAME, business only prospers at the consent of the people...if the people do not like your business, they can keep you out...regardless what you have been told...A business isnt a person, it has no rights except those WE GIVE THEM.

Oh and RW NAME, if you want a perfect example of what I am saying...Look at the Mississippi Laws, trying to stop all Abortion Clinics in their state..via laws making it difficult for clinic to comply, you know impossible thing., They have created roadblocks in zoning laws...very effective. See Abortions is a legal business, but if you create laws and zoning rights..you can keep a legal business like abortions from operating in your state.

So if you can deny a woman the right to make determinations for her own health and well being...we can stop you from selling a crusty chicken sandwich....m'kay?

[Kalidurga]

1. OMG

That is so awesome. Keep yer crusty sandwiches out of my neighborhood.

[Tennessee Gal]

2. Beautiful!

[Initech]

3. Crusty chicken sandwich sold by an evil, bigoted corporation. No thanks.

[SlimJimmy]

4. How do you zone out one business specifically?

[Occulus]

10. You write general zoning laws that currently apply to only that business

[SlimJimmy]

11. How is that possible without naming them? I don't think it would stand up in court for two minutes

[Occulus]

14. It didn't in Michigan, I believe

I believe it was a WalMart. The city council, IIRC, tried to limit them in some way in exactly that fashion. The court ruled their actions impermissible, because they adopted the ordinance after WalMart announced its intention to turn one of their regular stores into a Supercenter.

I believe the same thing will happen here, though I could be wrong; it's in a different state, after all. Note that this is not stopping Southern states (Missouri in particular) from trying, without much success, to do the same thing regarding Planned Parenthood.

[SlimJimmy]

15. I'm not a big fan of this type of action by the government. If there's a problem with Chic-fil-a's

politics, then let's boycott the hell out of them. When the government steps in and tries to limit private entities, I fear it could happen on our side as well.

[HockeyMom]

5. Don't have one

either a Chik-Fil-A, abortion, birth control, or gay marriage. As far as the Bible Chicken, if enough people don't have one, they will go out of business.

[tritsofme]

6. So presumably you support conservative jurisdictions banning specific liberal owned businesses?

Based on flimsy excuses over zoning laws?

Laws regulating specific industries or practices are quite different from singling out individual businesses over the politics of their owners.

Business owners should be held accountable by the public for their actions, but they should not have to fear retribution by the government for differing political views. This is a pretty scary worldview.

[DearAbby]

8. Of course not...

I was just showing him, the hypocrisy of the GOP.

Mississippi Law he supported. He got the point.

[tritsofme]

19. You seem to be the hypocrite.

The Mississippi law is not comparable to singling out individual businesses whose owners have different politics from you. In your scenario, conservatives would be justified in denying liberals the right to open businesses, because their people don't tolerate their kind. It's kind of a sick way to think about government.

[mysuzuki2]

7. you know. I kind of agree with the RW (and the ACLU) on this one

the management of Chic fil ass or any other business have the right to spend their money where they wish. The rest of us have the right to criticize them for their views and to decline to patronize them. As I will. As far as I know, Chik fil ass does not have a particularly bad record of discrimination against employees or patrons. If they were shown to discriminate egregiously against employees or customers that might be a reason not to allow them in your city. Until then I think these mayors are wrong. Please feel free to disagree. I will not take offense.

[DearAbby]

9. Well then the State of Mississippi should have to

Abide by that as well. See the GOP are all for using this tactic to stop an Abortion...but I will be damned if we stop a business ran by a hateful person, sell his damned sandwiches!!!!

[mysuzuki2]

13. the state of Miss is indeed wrong.

BTW, McDonalds has a pretty good chicken sandwich on their $1 menu! A better deal all around.

[-..__...]

12. Apples and oranges.

Abortion providers/women health clinics are a unique enterprise that provides a substantially different service than a fast food chain/restaurant.

In Chick-Fil-A's case, it would be a difficult argument to make/position to support if they were planning to locate in an area that already allows fast food chains/restaurants.

A community could use zoning laws to prevent a fast food chain/restaurant, from opening a franchise in a residential area, industrial area, etc.

To allow McDonalds, Burger King,Olive Garden to open a franchise zoned for that type of business, but disallow similar business, puts the agency that grants permits in a real shaky position.

Yeah... it's fucked up that communities abuse/exploit zoning laws (or rewrite them), to keep abortion providers from opening their doors, but if DC, Boston, Chicago attempt to play that game against Chick-Fil-A, they could be on the losing end of a costly/embarrassing lawsuit.

[cthulu2016]

16. +1

[cthulu2016]

17. You argument is hopeless.

You are arguing in favor of something patently unconstitutional by noting that Mississippi does the same thing.

Awesome.

[Alejandro]

18. Mistake

As outrageous as Chick Fil A's management is, the best we can do is to encourage a massive boycott of the company. To ask city councils and local governments to step in and prohibit new Chick Fil As from opening would be a blatant violation of the company management's First Amendment rights. The only way to justify this would be to somehow prove that the company has engaged in a policy of discrimination against gays in the workplace or against gay customers and so far, nobody has brought forth any evidence to suggest this. Furthermore, from a tactical point of view, this may very well backfire as conservative politicians will feel emboldened to engage in similar tactics. For those of us who feel offended by Chick Fil A's stance on homosexuality, we can perfectly express our outrage by refusing to patronize this company and encourage others to do the same. Doing so would be both tactically prudent and would not in any way violate the Constitution.

[cali]

20. Sickening. Just fucking sickening.

sign me up with the RW in your argument. Do you have any clue as to how this could be misused. It's not gonna happen anyway because it's blatantly unconstitutional.

It's so fucked up to see people endorsing this exceedingly lame argument. You do realize that if you enablers of crushing the Constitution back this shit, how badly it could backfire, right? No, obviously you do not.

[IdaBriggs]

21. I went a different route - name calling. Seemed to work.

(I get what you were trying to accomplish, by the way.)

Anyway, I used my "free speech" to talk about what a Godless Whore Who Was Going To Burn In the Fires of Hell and Shouldn't Be Allowed Employment Around Decent Folk Because of Her Sluttish Ways, etc. the person defending Chikfila was. Since I had neither met the person in question nor had any personal knowledge of her Sluttish ways, the comments were rightfully deemed Inappropriate and Offensive.

There was silence as the "oh, that's still true (rude) for the gay people, too" sunk in a bit.

The whole "glass houses" concept is a tough one for some people to grasp, until a few stones get flung at them.

P.S. I did it on purpose to make a point. I am confident my critics could do it better, but it was what my poor wit could come up with at the time, and I am quite proud of myself for it, as I think the original poster should be as well. I find the "Bad! You support gay rights by getting that Chikfila did something wrong, but we'll play circular firing squad against our own people because You Did It WRONG!" to be ... Ignorable, and hope the original poster continues to advocate against homophobia in all it's forms, including so-called "free speech advocates."